Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient and Physician Factors Associated with Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Aims

Sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) have been increasingly recognized as precursors to colorectal cancer. Unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR), there is currently no agreed-upon benchmark for SSL detection rate (SSLDR), and data on factors that impact SSL detection are limited. We aimed to identify patient, endoscopist, and procedural factors associated with SSL and adenoma detection.

Methods

We used a single-center electronic endoscopy database to identify all patients ages ≥ 50 years who underwent outpatient screening colonoscopy from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2018. Univariable Chi-square analysis was used to determine patient, endoscopist, and procedure-related factors associated with SSL or adenoma detection. We used logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, accounting for clustering by individual endoscopist, to determine factors independently associated with ADR and SSLDR.

Results

We identified 10,538 unique patients who underwent colonoscopy performed by 28 endoscopists. Overall SSLDR was 2.2%, and overall ADR was 29.1%. On multivariable analysis, patient age, sex, BMI, smoking, endoscopist withdrawal time, and year of colonoscopy were independent predictors of ADR. Smoking and year of colonoscopy were independent predictors of SSLDR. Sub-optimal bowel preparation was inversely associated with SSL detection but not ADR.

Conclusions

In this large study of patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy, overall SSLDR was low, indicating that methods for increasing SSLDR are needed. Our findings suggest that endoscopists may take into account risk factors for SSLs, such as smoking history, and recognize that the detection of such lesions, even more so than for adenomas, is dependent on optimal bowel preparation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology. 2007;50:113–130.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2088–2100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:42–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdeljawad K, Vemulapalli KC, Kahi CJ, et al. Sessile serrated polyp prevalence determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate and an experienced pathologist. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:517–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S, et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1189–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ohki D, Tsuji Y, Shinozaki T, et al. Sessile serrated adenoma detection rate is correlated with adenoma detection rate. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;10:82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel VD, Thompson WK, Lapin BR, et al. Screening colonoscopy withdrawal time threshold for adequate proximal serrated polyp detection rate. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:3084–3090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-018-5187-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Goodrich M, et al. Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the new hampshire colonoscopy registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1308–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:31–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Maratt JK, Dickens J, Schoenfeld PS, et al. Factors associated with surveillance adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection rates. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62(12):3579–3585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-017-4792-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Tholey DM, Shelton CE, Francis G, et al. Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49:313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sarvepalli S, Garber A, Rothberg MB, et al. Association of adenoma and proximal sessile serrated polyp detection rates with endoscopist characteristics. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crockett SD, Gourevitch RA, Morris M, et al. Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2018;50:984–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mehrotra A, Morris M, Gourevitch RA, et al. Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:778–786.e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cavicchi M, Tharsis G, Burtin P, et al. Difference in physician- and patient-dependent factors contributing to adenoma detection rate and serrated polyp detection rate. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64:3579–3588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05808-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:620–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2667.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Barret M, Boustiere C, Canard JM, et al. Factors associated with adenoma detection rate and diagnosis of polyps and colorectal cancer during colonoscopy in France: results of a prospective, nationwide survey. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68947.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F, et al. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy (EQuIPE) study. Gut. 2017;66:1233–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Anderson JC, Weiss JE, Robinson CM, et al. Adenoma detection rates for screening colonoscopies in smokers and obese adults: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51:e95–e100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaukat A, Gravely AA, Kim AS, et al. Rates of detection of adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma, and advanced adenoma are stable over time and modifiable. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:816–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Li D, Liu L, Fevrier HB, et al. Increased risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a history of serrated polyps. Gastroenterology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Holme Ø, Bretthauer M, Eide TJ, et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with serrated polyps. Gut. 2015;64:929–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:1155–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:417–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant Number UL1TR001873.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Margaret J. Zhou, Benjamin Lebwohl & Anna Krigel

  2. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Benjamin Lebwohl

  3. Department of Medicine, Celiac Disease Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Benjamin Lebwohl

  4. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Benjamin Lebwohl & Anna Krigel

Authors
  1. Margaret J. Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Lebwohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Krigel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Krigel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, M.J., Lebwohl, B. & Krigel, A. Patient and Physician Factors Associated with Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates. Dig Dis Sci 65, 3123–3131 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06419-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06419-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation