Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2021, 165(4):386-389 | DOI: 10.5507/bp.2020.059

Correlation between ADR of screening and all colonoscopies

Ivana Mikoviny Kajzrlikovaa, Petr Vitekb, Josef Chalupaa, Jan Kuchara, Jiri Platosa, Pavel Rehaa, Pavel Klvana jr.a
a Beskydy Gastrocentre, Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Frydek-Mistek, Czech Republic
b Beskydy Gastrocentre, Hospital Frydek-Mistek and Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy with polypectomy are associated with a reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), as well as mortality, secondary to CRC. Because of the variation in physicians' performance and the risk of interval CRC after a colonoscopy, several quality indicators have been established. ADR (adenoma detection rate) is a generally accepted quality indicator. But it is also a target of possible gaming and achieving an adequate number of colonoscopies only from screening may be a problem for some practices. The aim of this study was to compare ADR for colonoscopies done for various indications and to look for correlations between the ADR of screening and all examinations.

Methods: We retrospectively assessed the quality indicators of all colonoscopies performed in a nonuniversity hospital, Frydek-Mistek, from January 2013 to December 2017. We calculated the ADR for all colonoscopies in patients over 50 years of age (subdivided into screening, surveillance, diagnostic) and separately only for screening colonoscopies. Correlations were made using the Pearson's correlation coeficient.

Results: The sample was composed of 6925 patients over 50 years of age (3620 men, 3305 women, mean age 66.2 years). The ADRs for screening and surveillance were higher than for diagnostic colonoscopies for all of the endoscopists, and the ADRs for all colonoscopies were lower than for screening, but sufficiently over 25%. There was a positive correlation between the ADR of screening and all colonoscopies (r=0.906, P<0.005).

Conclusions: The calculation of ADR for all colonoscopies was possible in our endoscopic department, and there was a positive correlation with ADR for screening colonoscopies. ADR for all colonoscopies is a good tool for calculating real ADR from large sample sizes without gaming. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03730441).

Keywords: adenoma, colorectal neoplasms, colonoscopy, quality improvement, standards, screening

Received: October 18, 2020; Revised: November 23, 2020; Accepted: November 24, 2020; Prepublished online: December 16, 2020; Published: November 23, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Mikoviny Kajzrlikova, I., Vitek, P., Chalupa, J., Kuchar, J., Platos, J., Reha, P., & Klvana, P. (2021). Correlation between ADR of screening and all colonoscopies. Biomedical papers, 165(4), 386-389. doi: 10.5507/bp.2020.059
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O'Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, Waye JD, Schapiro M, Bond JH, Panish JF. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977-81. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, Morikawa T, Liao X, Qian ZR, Inamura K, Kim SA, Kuchiba A, Yamauchi M, Imamura Y, Willett WC, Rosner BA, Fuchs CS, Giovannucci E, Ogino S, Chan AT. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1095-105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE, Hoffman B, Jacobson BC, Mergener K, Petersen BT, Safdi MA, Faigel DO, Pike IM. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:S16-28. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.02.021 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, Bretthauer M, Rees CJ, Dekker E, Hoff G, Jover R, Suchanek S, Ferlitsch M, Anderson J, Roesch T, Hultcranz R, Racz I, Kuipers EJ, Garborg K, East JE, Rupinski M, Seip B, Bennett C, Senore C, Minozzi S, Bisschops R, Domagk D, Valori R, Spada C, Hassan C, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Rutter MD. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017;49:378-97. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-103411 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, Zwierko M, Rupinski M, Nowacki MP, Butruk E. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795-803. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Corley D, Jensen C, Marks A. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1298-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. Rex D, Schoenfeld P, Cohen J, Pike I, Adler D, Fennerty MLI, JG, Park W, Rizk M, Shaheen J, Wani S, Weinberg D. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2015;81:31-53. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:576-82. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.12.012 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Kessler WR, Imperiale TF, Klein RW, Wielage RC, Rex DK. A quantitative assessment of the risks and cost savings of forgoing histologic examination of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 2011;43:683-91. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256381 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Kaminski M, Wieszczy P, Kolacz A, Rupinski M, Franczyk R, Rupinska M, Bretthauer M, Regula J. Comparison of quality measures for detection of neolasia in screening colonoscopy. Volume 83: Gastroinstestinal Endoscopy, 2016: Page AB527 doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1067 Go to original source...
    11. Denis B, Sauleau EA, Gendre I, Exbrayat C, Piette C, Dancourt V, Foll Y, Ait Hadad H, Bailly L, Perrin P. The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy: a population-based cohort study. Dig Liver Dis 2014;46:176-81. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.08.129 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Rex DK, Ponugoti PL. Calculating the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopies only: Is it necessary? Can it be gamed? Endoscopy 2017;49:1069-1074. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-113445 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A, Jacobson BC. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:376-80. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.023 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Lieberman D, Mascarenhas R. Adenoma detection rate: in search of quality improvement, not just measurement. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:683-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.02.020 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Marcondes FO, Dean KM, Schoen RE, Leffler DA, Rose S, Morris M, Mehrotra A. The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:668-75. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.056 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Hoff G, Botteri E, Hoie O, Garborg K, Wiig H, Huppertz-Hauss G, Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Holme O. Polyp detection rates as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 2019;7:E195-E202. doi: 10.1055/a-0796-6477 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Lieberman DA, Williams JL, Holub JL, Morris CD, Logan JR, Eisen GM, Carney P. Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes 2000 to 2011. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;80:133-43. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.014 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content