Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications.
adenoma detection
colonoscopy
colorectal cancer
endoscopist
serrated polyp
Journal
United European gastroenterology journal
ISSN: 2050-6414
Titre abrégé: United European Gastroenterol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
received:
18
04
2022
accepted:
13
09
2022
pubmed:
28
10
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
entrez:
27
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies. This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated. We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR). Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.
METHODS
This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated.
RESULTS
We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR).
CONCLUSIONS
Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36300971
doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12325
pmc: PMC9731659
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1008-1019Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.
Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Mar;77(3):381-389.e1
pubmed: 23218945
Endoscopy. 2018 Oct;50(10):984-992
pubmed: 29689571
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Apr;77(4):617-23
pubmed: 23321338
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Apr;71(4):782-6
pubmed: 20363418
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Mar;8(3):275-9
pubmed: 19879970
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):31-53
pubmed: 25480100
United European Gastroenterol J. 2022 Nov;10(9):1008-1019
pubmed: 36300971
Endoscopy. 2012 May;44(5):476-81
pubmed: 22531983
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 14;355(24):2533-41
pubmed: 17167136
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):778-786.e5
pubmed: 28866456
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul;17(8):1571-1579.e7
pubmed: 30326300
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1795-803
pubmed: 20463339
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jun;69(7):1288-95
pubmed: 19481649
Gastroenterology. 2015 Oct;149(4):952-7
pubmed: 26164494
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jun;108(6):993-9
pubmed: 23567353
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jul 20;96(15):8681-6
pubmed: 10411935
Dig Dis Sci. 2019 Dec;64(12):3579-3588
pubmed: 31471862
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 May;18(5):1216-1223.e2
pubmed: 31446179
Histopathology. 2007 Jan;50(1):113-30
pubmed: 17204026
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Dec;7(12):1335-40
pubmed: 19665583
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Mar;109(3):417-26
pubmed: 24394752
Endoscopy. 2017 Apr;49(4):378-397
pubmed: 28268235
Endoscopy. 2016 Mar;48(3):241-7
pubmed: 26845473
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Apr;63(4 Suppl):S16-28
pubmed: 16564908
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Mar;61(3):378-84
pubmed: 15758907
Endoscopy. 2020 Aug;52(8):687-700
pubmed: 32572858
United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 May;6(4):622-629
pubmed: 29881618
Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 1;116(3):458-479
pubmed: 33657038
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1298-306
pubmed: 24693890
Gut. 2013 Feb;62(2):236-41
pubmed: 22442161
Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45(10):842-51
pubmed: 24030244
Gastroenterology. 2008 Dec;135(6):1892-8
pubmed: 18835390