Browsing by Subject "adenoma detection rate"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Colonoscopy Quality Assessment
    (Elsevier, 2015-04) Fayad, Nabil F.; Kahi, Charles J.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    Colonoscopy is the cornerstone of colorectal cancer screening programs. There is significant variability in the quality of colonoscopy between endoscopists. Colonoscopy quality assessment tracks various metrics in  order  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  colonoscopy,  aiming  at  reducing  the  incidence  and  mortality  from colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rate is the prime metric, as it is associated with the risk of interval  cancers.  Implementing  processes  to  measure and improve the adenoma detection rate  is  essential to improve the quality of colonoscopy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Defining adenoma detection rate benchmarks in average-risk male veterans
    (Elsevier, 2018) El-Halabi, Mustapha M.; Rex, Douglas K.; Saito, Akira; Eckert, George J.; Kahi, Charles J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Veterans have higher prevalence of colorectal neoplasia than non-veterans; however, it is not known whether specific Veterans Affairs (VA) adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks are required. We compared ADRs of a group of endoscopists for colonoscopies performed at a VA to their ADRs at a non-VA academic medical center. Methods This was a retrospective review of screening colonoscopies performed by endoscopists who practice at the Indianapolis VA and Indiana University (IU). Patients were average-risk males aged 50 years or older. ADR, proximal adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, and adenomas per colonoscopy were compared between IU and the VA groups. Results Six endoscopists performed screening colonoscopies at both locations during the study period (470 at IU vs 608 at the VA). The overall ADR was not significantly different between IU and the VA (58% vs 61%; p =0.21). Advanced neoplasia detection rate (13% vs 17%; p=0.46), proximal adenoma detection rate (46% vs 47%; p=0.31), and adenoma per colonoscopy (1.59 vs 1.84; p=0.24) were not significantly different. There were no significant differences in cecal intubation rate (100% vs 99%; p=0.13) or withdrawal time (10.9 vs 11.1 min; p=0.28). In regression analysis, there was significant correlation between the attending-specific ADRs at IU and the VA (p=0.041, r-square=0.69). Conclusions In this study of average-risk males undergoing screening colonoscopies by the same group of endoscopists, the ADRs of VA and non-VA colonoscopies were not significantly different. This suggests that a VA-specific ADR target is not required for endoscopists with high ADR.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Determining the adenoma detection rate and adenomas per colonoscopy by photography alone: proof-of-concept study
    (Thieme, 2015-09) Rex, Douglas K.; Hardacker, Kyle; MacPhail, Margaret; Rahmani, Farrah; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Kahi, Charles J.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    Background and study aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC) are measures of the quality of mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. In a resect and discard policy, pathologic assessment for calculation of ADR and APC would not be available. The aim of this study was to determine whether ADR and APC calculation based on photography alone is adequate compared with the pathology-based gold standard. Patients and methods: A prospective, observational, proof-of-concept study was performed in an academic endoscopy unit. High definition photographs of consecutive polyps were taken, and pathology was estimated by the colonoscopist. Among 121 consecutive patients aged ≥ 50 years who underwent colonoscopy, 268 polyps were removed from 97 patients. Photographs of consecutive polyps were reviewed by a second endoscopist. Results: The resect and discard policy applied to lesions that were ≤ 5 mm in size. When only photographs of lesions that were ultimately proven to be adenomas were included, the reviewer assessed ADR and APC to be lower than that determined by pathology (absolute reductions of 6.6 % and 0.17, and relative reductions of 12.6 % and 13.1 % in ADR and APC, respectively). When all photographs were included for calculation of ADR and APC, the reviewer determined the ADR to be 3.3 % lower (absolute reduction) and the APC to be the same as the rates determined by pathology. Conclusions: In a simulated resect and discard strategy, a high-level detector can document adequate ADR and APC by photography alone.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of a ring fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial
    (Elsevier, 2019) Rex, Douglas K.; Kessler, William R.; Sagi, Sashidhar V.; Rogers, Nicholas A.; Fischer, Monika; Bohm, Matthew E.; Wo, John M.; Dewitt, John M.; McHenry, Lee; Lahr, Rachel E.; Searight, Meghan P.; MacPhail, Margaret; Sullivan, Andrew W.; McWhinney, Connor D.; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims: Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring fitted cap (EndoRings, EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy. Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon. Results: EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, p=0.025) but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or SSPDR. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with EndoRings and contributed substantially to the overall results. Conclusions: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Implications of stable or increasing adenoma detection rate on the need for continuous measurement
    (Elsevier, 2021) El Rahyel, Ahmed; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Lahr, Rachel E.; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Measurement of adenoma detection rate (ADR) is resource intensive and the benefit of continuous measurement for colonoscopists with high ADR is unclear. We examined the ADR trends at our center to determine whether continuous measurement for consistently high ADR is warranted. Methods Among colonoscopies performed between January 1999 and November 2019 at a tertiary center, we analyzed data from colonoscopists performing at least 50 screening colonoscopies annually for 5 consecutive years. ADR trends for individual colonoscopists were examined using Joinpoint regression models. Results Eleven colonoscopists performed screening colonoscopies on 14,047 patients, and 5,912 among them had at least 1 conventional adenoma removed (42.0%). Of 25,829 polyps, 13,585 (52.6%) were conventional adenomas or adenocarcinomas and contributed to ADR calculation. All but 1 colonoscopist included met the recommended minimum threshold ADR of 25% continuously over the study period. Of the 11 colonoscopists, 5 had an increase in their ADR and the remaining 6 had stable ADRs over the study period. Conclusion For colonoscopists consistently performing above the minimum threshold, diversion of resources toward improvement of quality measures other than ADR is justified.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Measuring the quality of colonoscopy: Where are we now and where are we going?
    (Elsevier, 2015-09) Imler, Timothy D.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Narrow-band Imaging for Detection of Neoplasia at Colonoscopy: a Meta-analysis of Data From Individual Patients in Randomized Controlled Trials
    (Elsevier, 2019) Atkinson, N. S. S.; Ket, S.; Bassett, P.; Aponte, D.; De Aguiar, S.; Gupta, N.; Horimatsu, T.; Ikematsu, H.; Inoue, T.; Kaltenbach, T.; Leung, W. K.; Matsuda, T.; Paggi, S.; Radaelli, F.; Rastogi, A.; Rex, D. K.; Sabbagh, L. C.; Saito, Y.; Sano, Y.; Saracco, G. M.; Saunders, B. P.; Senore, C.; Soetiko, R.; Vemulapalli, K. C.; Jairath, V.; East, J. E.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality assurance measure for colonoscopy. Some studies suggest that narrow band imaging (NBI) may be more effective at detection of adenomas than white-light endoscopy (WLE) when bowel preparation is optimal. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of NBI to WLE in detection of adenomas. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, through April 2017, for randomized controlled trials that assessed detection of colon polyps by high-definition WLE vs NBI and from which data on individual patients was available. The primary outcome measure was ADR adjusted for bowel preparation quality. Multilevel regression models were used with patients nested within trials, and trial included as a random effect. Results We collected data from 11 trials, comprising 4491 patients and 6636 polyps detected. Adenomas were detected in 952/2251 (42.3%) participants examined by WLE vs 1011/2239 (45.2%) participants examined by NBI (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] for detection of adenoma by WLE vs NBI, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29; P=.04). NBI outperformed WLE only when bowel preparation was best: adequate preparation OR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.24; P=.38) vs best preparation OR, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.04–1.62; P=.02). Second-generation bright NBI had a better ADR than WLE (second-generation NBI OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05–1.56; P=.02), whereas first-generation NBI did not. NBI detected more non-adenomatous polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06–1.44; P=.008) and flat polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.51; P=.03). Conclusions In a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials, we found NBI to have a higher ADR than WLE, and that this effect is greater when bowel preparation is optimal.