The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate.
Polyp detection rate
non-screening colonoscopy
quality indicator
Journal
Annals of gastroenterology
ISSN: 1108-7471
Titre abrégé: Ann Gastroenterol
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 101121847
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
22
01
2019
accepted:
11
03
2019
entrez:
2
5
2019
pubmed:
2
5
2019
medline:
2
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Adenoma/polyp detection rates are considered to be among the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy and are key measures of a quality procedure. However, they are designed for use in the screening setting and are not amenable to other colonoscopy indications. Little is known about their significance in other colonoscopy indications. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the various indications on polyp detection rate (PDR). This was a retrospective, single-center study. Electronic reports of index colonoscopy procedures with adequate bowel preparation over a 10-year period were reviewed. Patients were divided into 7 groups based on the study indication. PDR was determined for each group and was compared to that of a control group, the screening indication group. Adjustment was made for potential confounders such as age, sex, and procedural setting. A total of 13,054 patients were considered suitable for the study. PDR was greatest in the positive fecal occult blood test group, with a value of 33.1% (P<0.01). Overall, the remaining groups showed similar PDRs compared with screening (22.1% vs. 20.4%; P=0.15). This trend persisted in a multivariate analysis, which showed the odds ratio in the positive fecal occult blood test group to be significantly higher, with a value of 1.955 (1.759-2.172, P<0.001) compared with the screening group. PDR was highest for the positive fecal occult blood test indication, but was not affected significantly by most indications. Further randomized studies are warranted to confirm these findings and help calculate recommended thresholds for "overall" PDR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Adenoma/polyp detection rates are considered to be among the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy and are key measures of a quality procedure. However, they are designed for use in the screening setting and are not amenable to other colonoscopy indications. Little is known about their significance in other colonoscopy indications. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the various indications on polyp detection rate (PDR).
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective, single-center study. Electronic reports of index colonoscopy procedures with adequate bowel preparation over a 10-year period were reviewed. Patients were divided into 7 groups based on the study indication. PDR was determined for each group and was compared to that of a control group, the screening indication group. Adjustment was made for potential confounders such as age, sex, and procedural setting.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 13,054 patients were considered suitable for the study. PDR was greatest in the positive fecal occult blood test group, with a value of 33.1% (P<0.01). Overall, the remaining groups showed similar PDRs compared with screening (22.1% vs. 20.4%; P=0.15). This trend persisted in a multivariate analysis, which showed the odds ratio in the positive fecal occult blood test group to be significantly higher, with a value of 1.955 (1.759-2.172, P<0.001) compared with the screening group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
PDR was highest for the positive fecal occult blood test indication, but was not affected significantly by most indications. Further randomized studies are warranted to confirm these findings and help calculate recommended thresholds for "overall" PDR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31040625
doi: 10.20524/aog.2019.0374
pii: AnnGastroenterol-32-278
pmc: PMC6479646
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
278-282Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: None
Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Jul;58(1):76-9
pubmed: 12838225
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Apr;101(4):873-85
pubmed: 16635231
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Sep 15;24(6):965-71
pubmed: 16948808
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 14;355(24):2533-41
pubmed: 17167136
Gastroenterology. 1991 Jan;100(1):64-7
pubmed: 1796931
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Jun;18(6):1688-94
pubmed: 19505900
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Jan 20;102(2):89-95
pubmed: 20042716
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1795-803
pubmed: 20463339
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Mar;73(3):498-506
pubmed: 20970795
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jan 4;154(1):22-30
pubmed: 21200035
CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90
pubmed: 21296855
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Mar;73(3):493-7
pubmed: 21353846
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Mar;75(3):576-82
pubmed: 22341104
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Oct;11(10):1308-12
pubmed: 23660415
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 18;8(7):e68947
pubmed: 23874822
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Mar;79(3):448-54
pubmed: 24246797
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jul;12(7):1137-42
pubmed: 24315881
CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Mar-Apr;64(2):104-17
pubmed: 24639052
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1298-306
pubmed: 24693890
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):31-53
pubmed: 25480100
Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar;13(1):156-70
pubmed: 25623474
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;3(4):524-548
pubmed: 27918777
United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Mar;5(2):149-152
pubmed: 28344785
United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Mar;5(2):255-260
pubmed: 28344793
Gastroenterology. 2017 Jul;153(1):98-105
pubmed: 28428142
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:7207595
pubmed: 29445393
Cancer. 2018 Jul 1;124(13):2785-2800
pubmed: 29786848
Arch Surg. 1987 Nov;122(11):1261-3
pubmed: 3675189
Gastroenterology. 1997 Feb;112(2):594-642
pubmed: 9024315