Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual polyp detection rate in routine daily endoscopy practice depends on case-mix

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), a marker of endoscopic quality, is confounded by selection bias. It is not known what the ADR is in normal daily practice.

Aim

To study the polyp detection rate (PDR) in different endoscopists in the course of years.

Patients and methods

All consecutive endoscopies of the colon done in 11 years were included. Endoscopies in the regular surveillance programme after polyp removal and after surgery because of colorectal cancer or diverticular disease were scored separately. The number of yearly procedures per endoscopist and presence of polyps, anastomoses, surveillance and cancer were noted.

Results

In the period of 11 years, 14,908 consecutive endoscopies of colon and rectum were done by four endoscopists. Two endoscopists had a significantly lower PDR than the other two (p < 0.001), these two had the longest careers in endoscopy. The two younger endoscopists did significantly less often procedures in patients with anastomoses and because of surveillance (p < 0.001, respectively). One endoscopist detected significantly less colorectal cancers than the other three endoscopists (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study presents the PDR in normal routine daily endoscopy practice. It can be concluded that the PDR, implicating the ADR, in unselected patients can be lower in individual endoscopists than recommended in the literature. This highly depends on the case-mix of patients presented for endoscopy. This result debates the use of the ADR as quality indicator for individual endoscopists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Pisani M, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2002: cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide. IARC CancerBase No.5 version 2.0 Lyon France : IARC press 2004, American Cancer society. Cancer facts and figure 2008, American Cancer Society, Atlanta. www.cancer.org

  2. Seeff L, Ahmed F, King JB, Coughlin SS (2009) Colorectal cancer incidence in the United States 1999–2004. Cancer 115:1967–1976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zauber AG, Winnawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooien M, Hankey BF, Shi W, Band J, Schapiro M, Panish JF, Stewart E, Wage JD (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal cancer death. N Engl J Med 23:687–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aslinia F, Uradomo L, Steele A, Greenwald BD, Raufman JP (2006) Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 101:721–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Loffeld RJ, van der Putten AB (2009) The completion rate of colonoscopy in normal daily practice: factors associated with failure. Digestion 80(4):267–270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Diamond SJ, Enestvedt BK, Jiang Z, Holub JL, Gupta M, Lieberman DA, Eisen GM (2011) Adenoma detection rate increases with each decade of life after 50 years of age. Gastrointest Endosc 74(1):135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Qumseya BJ, Wallace MB (2012) Advanced colorectal polyp detection techniques. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 14(5):414–420. doi:10.1007/s11894-012-0279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H, Theilmeier A, Von Stillfried D, Schmiegel W (2012) Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 142:1460–1467. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.03.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Loffeld RJ, Liberov B, Dekkers PE (2012) The yearly prevalence of findings in endoscopy of the lower part of the gastrointestinal tract. ISRN Gastroenterol 2012:527634. doi:10.5402/2012/527634

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Komeda Y, Suzuki N, Sarah M, Thomas-Gibson S, Vance M, Fraser C, Patel K, Saunders BP (2013) Factors associated with failed polyp retrieval at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 77(3):395–400. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Lelyveld N, van Oijen MG, Schwartz MP (2012) [Quality indicators for colonoscopy: differences in polyp detection between endoscopists at one hospital]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 156(24):A4219, Article in Dutch

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aslanian HR, Shieh FK, Chan FW, Ciarleglio MM, Deng Y, Rogart JN, Jamidar PA, Siddiqui UD (2013) Nurse observation during colonoscopy increases polyp detection: a randomized prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 108(2):166–172. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim TS, Park DI, Lee do Y, Yoon JH, Park JH, Kim HJ, Cho YK, Sohn CI, Jeon WK, Kim BI, Lim JW (2012) Endoscopy nurse participation may increase the polyp detection rate by second-year fellows during screening colonoscopies. Gut Liver 6(3):344–348. doi:10.5009/gnl.2012.6.3.344

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Munson GW, Harewood GC, Francis DL (2011) Time of day variation in polyp detection rate for colonoscopies performed on a 3-hour shift schedule. Gastrointest Endosc 73:467–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim G, Viney SK, Chapman BA, Frizelle FA, Gearry RB (2012) A prospective study of endoscopist-blinded colonoscopy withdrawal times and polyp detection rates in a tertiary hospital. N Z Med J 125(1356):52–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, Netherlands

    R. J. L. F. Loffeld, B. Liberov & P. E. P. Dekkers

Authors
  1. R. J. L. F. Loffeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Liberov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. E. P. Dekkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. J. L. F. Loffeld.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loffeld, R.J.L.F., Liberov, B. & Dekkers, P.E.P. Individual polyp detection rate in routine daily endoscopy practice depends on case-mix. Int J Colorectal Dis 30, 927–932 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2181-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2181-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation