Can the Adenoma Detection Rate Reliably Identify Low-Performing Endoscopists? Results of a Modeling Study
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Experts have stated that adenoma detection rates (ADR) of individual endoscopists should be measured to assess colonoscopy quality.
The purpose of this study was to quantify the reliability of the ADR as a quality marker.
We simulated a population of endoscopists and patients using published data on adenoma prevalence and adenoma miss rates. For each endoscopist, the ADR was calculated. The proportion of ADR variance attributable to endoscopist and the area under the ROC (AUROC) curve for low-performing endoscopists (lowest quartile or decile) were also calculated.
In the base-case analysis (200 patients per endoscopist, miss rate 22 %, adenoma prevalence 24 %), only 13 % of ADR variance was attributable to endoscopist performance (AUROC up to 0.73). An ADR cutoff of <16.5 % identified approximately half of endoscopists in the lowest performance decile (test sensitivity = 53 %), but most (79 %) of the endoscopists identified by this cutoff were NOT low performers (i.e., false positives). In sensitivity analysis, increasing the number of patients per endoscopist, reducing the variance of adenoma prevalence between endoscopists (i.e., performing case-mix adjustment), and increasing the variance in performance between endoscopists all improved ADR test characteristics (AUROC up to 0.88). However, regardless of assumptions, a substantial proportion of endoscopists would be misclassified if a simple ADR cutoff were utilized.
The ADR has limited reliability as a quality marker under real-world assumptions. Simple cutoffs are likely to either be insufficiently sensitive or have high false positive rates. Future studies should identify alternative means for assessing endoscopist performance.
- Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Xu, J, Ward, E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60: pp. 277-300 CrossRef
- Vogelstein, B, Fearon, ER, Hamilton, SR (1988) Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med 319: pp. 525-532 CrossRef
- Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:627–637.
- Brenner, H, Chang-Claude, J, Seiler, CM, Rickert, A, Hoffmeister, M (2011) Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 154: pp. 22-30 CrossRef
- Bressler, B, Paszat, LF, Chen, Z, Rothwell, DM, Vinden, C, Rabeneck, L (2007) Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 132: pp. 96-102 CrossRef
- Baxter, NN, Sutradhar, R, Forbes, SS, Paszat, LF, Saskin, R, Rabeneck, L (2011) Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 140: pp. 65-72 CrossRef
- Rijn, JC, Reitsma, JB, Stoker, J, Bossuyt, PM, Deventer, SJ, Dekker, E (2006) Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 101: pp. 343-350 CrossRef
- Robertson, DJ, Greenberg, ER, Beach, M (2005) Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 129: pp. 34-41 CrossRef
- Rex, DK (2000) Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 51: pp. 33-36 CrossRef
- Rex, DK, Petrini, JL, Baron, TH (2006) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 101: pp. 873-885
- Kaminski, MF, Regula, J, Kraszewska, E (2010) Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 362: pp. 1795-1803 CrossRef
- Saini, S, Lieberman, D, Holub, J, Peters, D, Schoenfeld, P (2009) Time trends in colonoscopy volume in the United States from 2002 to 2007. Gastrointest Endosc 69: pp. AB310-AB311 CrossRef
- Pickhardt, PJ, Nugent, PA, Mysliwiec, PA, Choi, JR, Schindler, WR (2004) Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 141: pp. 352-359 CrossRef
- Zalis, ME, Blake, MA, Cai, W (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med 156: pp. 692-702 CrossRef
- Koretz, RL (1993) Malignant polyps: are they sheep in wolves’ clothing?. Ann Intern Med 118: pp. 63-68 CrossRef
- Vogelaar, I, Ballegooijen, M, Schrag, D (2006) How much can current interventions reduce colorectal cancer mortality in the U.S.? Mortality projections for scenarios of risk-factor modification, screening, and treatment. Cancer 107: pp. 1624-1633 CrossRef
- Niv, Y, Hazazi, R, Levi, Z, Fraser, G (2008) Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic people: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 53: pp. 3049-3054 CrossRef
- Ferlitsch, M, Reinhart, K, Pramhas, S (2011) Sex-specific prevalence of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancer in individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. JAMA 306: pp. 1352-1358 CrossRef
- Donabedian, A (2003) An introduction to quality assurance in health care. Oxford University Press, Oxford
- Bai, Y, Gao, J, Zou, DW, Li, ZS (2010) Distribution trends of colorectal adenoma and cancer: a colonoscopy database analysis of 11,025 Chinese patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 25: pp. 1668-1673 CrossRef
- Chen, HM, Weng, YR, Jiang, B (2011) Epidemiological study of colorectal adenoma and cancer in symptomatic patients in China between 1990 and 2009. J Dig Dis 12: pp. 371-378 CrossRef
- Sanchez Del Rio, A, Baudet, JS, Naranjo Rodriguez, A (2010) Development and validation of quality standards for colonoscopy. Med Clin (Barc) 134: pp. 49-56 CrossRef
- Rex, DK, Petrini, JL, Baron, TH (2006) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 63: pp. S16-S28 CrossRef
- Can the Adenoma Detection Rate Reliably Identify Low-Performing Endoscopists? Results of a Modeling Study
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Volume 58, Issue 7 , pp 1856-1862
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Quality improvement
- Adenoma detection rate
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2215 Fuller Road – IIID, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA
- 2. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- 3. Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA