Variability in Adenoma Detection Rate in Control Groups of Randomized Colonoscopy Trials

Date
2022
Language
American English
Embargo Lift Date
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Elsevier
Can't use the file because of accessibility barriers? Contact us with the title of the item, permanent link, and specifics of your accommodation need.
Abstract

Background: Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most of the studies included mixed indications and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels.

Methods: Patients in the control groups of randomized studies on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition (HD) white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval [CI] according to the following parameters: clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, N° centres, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time). Inter-study heterogeneity was reported with I-squared statistic. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression was performed for potentially relevant variables.

Findings: 25,304 patients from 80 studies in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 95.1%; random-effect pooled value: 37.5% [34.6‒40.5]). There was no difference in ADR levels between primary colonoscopy screening (12 RCTs, 15%), and mixed indications including screening/surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopy; however, FIT as an indication for colonoscopy was an independent predictor of ADR (OR: 1.6 [1.1‒2.4]). Other well known parameters were confirmed by our analysis such as age (OR: 1.038 [1.004‒1.074]) and sex (male sex: OR: 1.02 [1.01‒1.03) as well withdrawal time (OR: 1.1 [1.0‒1.1). The type of intervention (imaging vs. mechanical) had no influence, but methodological factors did: more recent year of publication and smaller sample size were associated with higher ADR.

Interpretation: A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the controls of RCTs. With regards to indications, only FIT-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodological, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
Cesare, Hassan and Piovani, Daniele and Spadaccini, Marco and Parigi, Tommaso and Kareem, Khalaf and Facciorusso, Antonio and Fugazza, Alessandro and Rösch, Thomas and Bretthauer, Michael and Mori, Yuichi and Sharma, Prateek and Rex, Douglas K. and Bonovas, Stefanos and Repici, Alessandro, Variability in Adenoma Detection Rate in Control Groups of Randomized Colonoscopy Trials. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4104366 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4104366
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
SSRN Electronic Journal
Source
SSRN
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Preprint
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}