Impact of adenoma detection rate on detection of advanced adenomas and endoscopic adverse events in a study of over 200,000 screening colonoscopies.


Journal

Gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1097-6779
Titre abrégé: Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0010505

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2020
Historique:
received: 25 03 2019
accepted: 19 08 2019
pubmed: 10 9 2019
medline: 28 11 2020
entrez: 10 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the best established quality parameter for screening colonoscopy. Guidelines recommend a target ADR >25% because previous studies have shown that patients of endoscopists with higher ADRs have a lower risk of postcolonoscopy interval cancers. However, studies have shown that improvement in ADR mainly results in increased detection of clinically irrelevant nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs). The impact of ADR on the detection of advanced adenomas (AAs) as well as adverse event rates has yet to be determined. A total of 218,193 screening colonoscopies performed between 2007 and 2010 by 262 endoscopists within the Austrian quality assurance program were analyzed. We divided endoscopists into quintiles based on ADRs and calculated mean advanced ADRs (AADRs), NAA detection rates (NAADRs), and adverse event rates for each quintile. Spearman rank-order was used to calculate overall correlations between ADRs and AADRs as well as adverse event rates. Endoscopists with an ADR <25% were compared with those with an ADR >25%. Fifty-one percent of patients were women. Mean ADR was 23.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.93-24.13), AADRs 7.72% (95% CI, 7.19-8.25), and NAADRs 15.31% (95% CI, 14.36-16.27). Overall, there was a significant correlation between ADR and AADR (rho = .51; P < .001). When ADR was divided into quintiles, mean AADR increased with increasing ADR. Even in the highest ADR group (ADR, 31.36%-52.27%) there was a further increase in AADR with a mean of 10.75% (95% CI, 9.31-12.19). Importantly, NAADRs increased continuously with improvement in ADRs but never dissociated from a simultaneous improvement in AADRs. However, there was also a significant correlation of ADRs and endoscopic adverse events (rho = .26, P < .001), even if the perforation rate of .028% (95% CI, .004-.052) in the highest ADR group still remained within the accepted limits based on guidelines. Increasing ADR is associated with improved detection of AAs and therefore is likely to prevent more cases of colorectal cancer. However, higher ADR was also associated with a higher rate of adverse events, although the adverse event rate was low.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the best established quality parameter for screening colonoscopy. Guidelines recommend a target ADR >25% because previous studies have shown that patients of endoscopists with higher ADRs have a lower risk of postcolonoscopy interval cancers. However, studies have shown that improvement in ADR mainly results in increased detection of clinically irrelevant nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs). The impact of ADR on the detection of advanced adenomas (AAs) as well as adverse event rates has yet to be determined.
METHODS
A total of 218,193 screening colonoscopies performed between 2007 and 2010 by 262 endoscopists within the Austrian quality assurance program were analyzed. We divided endoscopists into quintiles based on ADRs and calculated mean advanced ADRs (AADRs), NAA detection rates (NAADRs), and adverse event rates for each quintile. Spearman rank-order was used to calculate overall correlations between ADRs and AADRs as well as adverse event rates. Endoscopists with an ADR <25% were compared with those with an ADR >25%.
RESULTS
Fifty-one percent of patients were women. Mean ADR was 23.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.93-24.13), AADRs 7.72% (95% CI, 7.19-8.25), and NAADRs 15.31% (95% CI, 14.36-16.27). Overall, there was a significant correlation between ADR and AADR (rho = .51; P < .001). When ADR was divided into quintiles, mean AADR increased with increasing ADR. Even in the highest ADR group (ADR, 31.36%-52.27%) there was a further increase in AADR with a mean of 10.75% (95% CI, 9.31-12.19). Importantly, NAADRs increased continuously with improvement in ADRs but never dissociated from a simultaneous improvement in AADRs. However, there was also a significant correlation of ADRs and endoscopic adverse events (rho = .26, P < .001), even if the perforation rate of .028% (95% CI, .004-.052) in the highest ADR group still remained within the accepted limits based on guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
Increasing ADR is associated with improved detection of AAs and therefore is likely to prevent more cases of colorectal cancer. However, higher ADR was also associated with a higher rate of adverse events, although the adverse event rate was low.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31499041
pii: S0016-5107(19)32208-4
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.038
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

135-141

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Daniela Penz (D)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Arnulf Ferlitsch (A)

Department of Internal Medicine I, St John of God Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

Elisabeth Waldmann (E)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Gessl Irina (G)

Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Pammer Daniel (P)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Arno Asaturi (A)

Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Anna Hinterberger (A)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Barbara Majcher (B)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Aleksandra Szymanska (A)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Michael Trauner (M)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Monika Ferlitsch (M)

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH