The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps

IJspeert, Joep E. G.; Doorn, Sascha C. van; Brug, Ymkje M. van der; Bastiaansen, Barbara A.; Fockens, Paul; Dekker, Evelien

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.02.044

Cited by 65 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, to provide comparable information, we also calculated the PSDR based on the splenic flexure anatomic cutoff (Table 3). Our PSDR using the splenic flexure (PSDR-SF) for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥35% was 14.2 % and is similar to a smaller Dutch study 25 of 2088 colonoscopies performed by 16 endoscopists (SDR proximal to the splenic flexure = 10.4%, ADR =35.2%), a Polish study 22 of 12,361 examinations (SDR proximal to splenic flexure = 9.7%, ADR =32.3.0%) and an American study 7, 8 of 6681 examinations performed by 15 endoscopists (SDR proximal to splenic flexure = 13.0%, ADR =38.0%). The American investigators suggested a PSDR benchmark of 5% based on an ADR of 25% 8 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…As compared with the studies cited above 8, 22, 25 , our NHCR database included many more colonoscopies that were performed by a larger number of endoscopists. More importantly, our data were collected from a diverse group of endoscopists and practices as opposed to the previous studies, which were based largely on data from a small number of academic centers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

Anderson

Butterly

Weiss

et al. 2017

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

122

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Similar to achieving adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), achieving adequate serrated polyp detection rates (SDR) may be essential to the prevention of CRC associated with the serrated pathway. Previous studies have been based on data from high-volume endoscopists at single academic centers. Based on a hypothesis that ADR is correlated with SDR, we stratified a large, diverse group of endoscopists (n=77 practicing at 28 centers) into high and low performers based on ADR, to provide data for corresponding target SDR benchmarks. Methods Using colonoscopies in adults ≥ 50 years (4/09–12/14), we stratified endoscopists by high and low ADR (< 15%,15% to <25%,25% to <35%, ≥35%), to determine corresponding SDRs, using two SDR measures, for screening and surveillance colonoscopies separately: (1) Clinically significant SDR (CSSDR) = colonoscopies with any SSA/P, TSA, HP >1 cm anywhere in the colon or HP > 5 mm in the proximal colon only ÷ by total screening and surveillance colonoscopies, respectively. (2) Proximal SDR (PSDR) = colonoscopies with any serrated polyp (SSA/P, HP, TSA) of any size proximal to the sigmoid ÷ by total screening and surveillance colonoscopies, respectively. Results A total of 45,996 (29,960 screening) colonoscopies by 77 endoscopists (28 facilities) were included. Moderately strong positive correlation coefficients were observed for screening ADR/CSSDR (ρ=0.69) and ADR/PSDR (ρ=0.79) and a strong positive correlation (ρ=0.82) for CSSDR/PSDR (p<0.0001 for all). For ADR ≥25%, endoscopists’ median (IQR) screening CSSDR was 6.8% (4.3%–8.6%) and PSDR was 10.8% (8.6% –16.1%). Conclusion Derived from ADR, the primary colonoscopy quality indicator, our results suggest potential SDR benchmarks (CSSDR=7% and PSDR=11%) that may guide adequate serrated polyp detection. Because CSSDR and PSDR are strongly correlated, endoscopists could use the simpler PSDR calculation to assess quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

Anderson

Butterly

Weiss

et al. 2017

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

122

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The strong association between the caecal intubation rate and SSPs was not unexpected. The SSPs in our series – as well as in previous ones32 34 – tend to be more frequently located in the proximal colon. Since incomplete colonoscopies are frequently limited to the distal colon,35 a large decrease in SSP prevalence between the incomplete and complete colonoscopy groups appears plausible.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…The former choice was justified by the unlikely role of small indolent hyperplastic lesions in colorectal carcinogenesis,21 while the very low prevalence of TSAs argues against any consideration of the DR of these lesions as a relevant quality indicator 20 32 34…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy)

Zorzi

Senore

et al. 2016

Gut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kahi et al 32 and IJspeert et al 33 found that the ADR and PSP-DR were strongly correlated. The linear regression model in our study also showed a statistically significant association between ADR and serrated lesions but through SSA/P-DR (P < 0.001).…”

Section: Primary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of time of day and specialty on polyp detection rates in Australia

Ovenden

et al. 2019

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality metric in colonoscopy. However, there is conflicting evidence around factors that influence ADR. This study aims to investigate the effect of time of day and endoscopist background on ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P‐DR) for screening colonoscopies. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy in 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Primary outcome was the effect of time of day and endoscopist specialty on screening ADR. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of the same factors on SSA/P‐DR and other metrics and collinearity of ADR and SSA/P‐DR. Linear regression models were used for association between ADR, time of day, and endoscopist background. Bowel preparation, endoscopist, session, patient age, and gender were adjusted for. Linear regression model was also used for comparing ADR and SSA/P‐DR. Chi‐square was used for difference of proportions. Results Two thousand six hundred fifty‐seven colonoscopies, of which 558 were screening colonoscopies, were performed. The adjusted mean ADR (screening) was 36.8% in the morning compared with 30.5% in the afternoon (P < 0.0001) and was 36.8% for gastroenterologists compared with 30.4% for surgeons (P < 0.0001). For every 1‐h delay in commencing the procedure, there was a reduction in mean ADR by 3.4%. Using a linear regression model, a statistically significant positive association was found between ADR and SSA/P‐DR (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Morning and afternoon sessions and gastroenterologists and surgeons achieved the minimum standards recommended for ADR. Afternoon lists and surgeons were associated with a lower ADR compared with morning and gastroenterologists, respectively. Additionally, SSA/P‐DR showed collinearity with ADR.

show abstract

The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps

Cited by 65 publications

References 24 publications

Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy)

Effect of time of day and specialty on polyp detection rates in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About