Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 64, Issue 12, pp 3579–3588 | Cite as

Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate

  • Maryan CavicchiEmail author
  • Gaëlle Tharsis
  • Pascal Burtin
  • Philippe Cattan
  • Franck Venezia
  • Gilles Tordjman
  • Agnès Gillet
  • Joëlle Samama
  • Karine Nahon-Uzan
  • David Karsenti
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is correlated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer and is considered as a quality benchmark for colonoscopy. Serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) might be a more stringent indicator of quality in polyp detection.

Aims

To evaluate in a 2-year monocentric observational study patient-dependent and endoscopist-dependent factors influencing ADR and SPDR in daily practice.

Methods

We determined ADR and SPDR. We collected patient-dependent factors and endoscopist-dependent factors. Links between these data and detection rates were assessed by uni- and multivariate analysis.

Results

A total of 11682 colonoscopies were performed (female: 54.3%; male: 45.7%; median age 58) by 30 endoscopists (female: 9; male: 21). ADR and SPDR were 29.2% and 8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ADR was associated with patient-dependent factors: age (OR 1.044, CI 95% 1.040–1.048), male gender (OR 1.7, CI 95% 1.56–1.85), personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.53, CI 95% 1.3–1.9), and positive fecal immunochemical test (OR 2.47, CI 95% 2.0–3.1). In multivariate analysis, SPDR was associated with withdrawal time (OR 1.25, CI 95% 1.17–1.32), low volume activity (OR 1.3, CI 95% 1.1–1.52), and personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.61, CI 95% 1.15–2.25).

Conclusion

In this large series of routine colonoscopies, we found that ADR was mainly driven by patient-dependent conditions, i.e., age, male gender, colonoscopy indication for positive FIT, and a personal history of polyp or cancer. In contrast, SPDR was mainly related to endoscopist-dependent factor, i.e., withdrawal time and low volume activity.

Keywords

Adenoma Sessile serrated polyp Colonoscopy Detection rates Advanced neoplasia Withdrawal time 

Abbreviations

CRC

Colorectal cancer

ADR

Adenoma detection rate

SPDR

Serrated polyp detection rare

BBPS

Boston Bowel Preparation Scale

ANDR

Advanced neoplasia detection rate

HP

Hyperplastic polyp

SSA/P

Serrated adenomas/polyps

TSA

Traditional serrated adenomas

SD

Standard deviation

IQR

Interquartile range

FIT

Fecal immunochemical test

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge all the collaborators and nurses involved in this work: Dr. Azria, Dr. Bumsel, Dr. Chemtob, Dr. Chryssostalis, Dr. Cohen, Mrs. Cordier, Dr. Debou, Dr. Demont, Dr. Etienney, Dr. Evard, Dr. Gillot, Dr. Grateau, Dr. Guigui, Dr. Hagège, Dr. Harboun, Mrs. Hazoume, Dr. Lab, Dr. Lons, Dr. Mehtari, Mrs. Pattin, Dr. Pecriaux, Dr. Pellat, Mrs. Pereira, Dr. Petit, Mrs. Ricq, Dr. Roycourt, Mrs. Tselikas, Dr. Zago, Mrs. Zanardo, Dr. Zeitoun, Dr. Zrihen, and Dr. Zylberberg.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegel R, DeSantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:104–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365–1371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, et al. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1674–1680.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS, et al. Long-term mortality screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1106–1114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ. 2014;348:g2467.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–696.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niikura R, Hirata Y, Suzuki N, Yamada A, et al. Colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer mortality: a multicenter, long-term, colonoscopy-based cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2017;28(12):e0185294.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1624–1633.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L, et al. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the italian randomized controlled trial—SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1310–1322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2345–2357.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holme Ø, Løberg M, Kalager M, et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:606–615.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy. 2017;49:378–397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–750.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wieszczy P, Regula J, Kaminski MF. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;31:441–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ross WA, Thirumurthi S, Lynch PM, et al. Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: time to revise quality standards? Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:567–574.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Floer M, Meister T. Endoscopic improvement of the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy—where do we stand in 2015. Digestion. 2016;93:202–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Weiss JE, Robinson CM. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:1188–1194.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    IJspeert JE, van Doorn SC, van der Brug YM, Bastiaansen BA, Fockens P, Dekker E. The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:870–877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hiraoka S, Kato J, Fujiki S, et al. The presence of large serrated polyps increases risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(1503–10):1510.e1–1510.e3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:686–692.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arditi C, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Burnand B, et al. EPAGE II Study Group. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Screening for colorectal cancer. Endoscopy. 2009;41:200–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA, et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1315–1329.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut. 2000;47:251–255.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cairns SR, Scholefiels JH, Steele RJ, et al. Guidelines pour colorectal cancer screenin and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut. 2010;59:666–689.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2012;61:1050–1057.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coe SG, Wallace MB. Assessment of adenoma detection rate benchmarks in women versus men. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:631–635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients From the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:307–323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park JH, Kim SJ, Hyun JH, et al. Correlation between bowel preparation and the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy. Ann Coloproctol. 2017;33:93–98.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kashiwagi K, Inoue N, Yoshida T, et al. Polyp detection rate in transverse and sigmoid colon significantly increases with longer withdrawal time during screening colonoscopy. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0174155.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jung Y, Joo YE, Kim HG, et al. Relationship between the endoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma/polyp detection rate in individual colonic segments: a KASID multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89:523–530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ, et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy. 2013;45:20–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vavricka SR, Sulz MC, Degen L, et al. Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal time significantly improves the adenoma detection rate and the performance of endoscopists. Endoscopy. 2016;48:256–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:952–957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kligman E, Li W, Eckert GJ, Kahi C. Adenoma detection rate in asymptomatic patients with positive fecal immunochemical tests. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:1167–1172.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-018-4984-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maratt JK, Dickens J, Schoenfeld PS, et al. Factors associated with surveillance adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection rates. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62:3579–3585.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-017-4792-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sanaka MR, Rai T, Navaneethan U, et al. Adenoma detection rate in high-risk patients differs from that in average-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:172–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martínez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA, et al. A Pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:832–841.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ijspeert JE, de Wit K, van der Vlugt M, Bastiaansen BA, Fockens P, Dekker E. Prevalence, distribution and risk of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps at a center with a high adenoma detection rate and experienced pathologists. Endoscopy. 2016;48:740–746.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    O’Connell B, Hafiz N, Crockett S. The serrated polyp pathway: is it time to alter surveillance guidelines? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2017;19:52.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Crockett SD, Gourevitch RA, Morris M, et al. Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2018;50:984–992.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Patel VD, Thompson WK, Lapin BR, Goldstein JL, Yen EF. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A, Jacobson BC. Reliability of adenoma detection rate si based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:376–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Occhipinti P, Saettone S, Cristina S, Ridola L, Hassan C. Correlation between adenoma and serrated lesion detection rates in an unselected outpatient population. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47:508–511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    East JE, Atkin WS, Bateman AC, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut. 2017;66:1181–1196.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shin A, Hong CW, Sohn DK, et al. Associations of cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption with advanced or multiple colorectal adenoma risks: a colonoscopy-based case-control study in Korea. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174:552–562.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ben Q, An W, Jiang Y, et al. Body mass index increases risk for colorectal adenomas based on meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2012;142:762–772.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kanadiya MK, Gohel TD, Sanaka MR, Thota PN, Shubrook JH Jr. Relationship between type-2 diabetes and use of metformin with risk of colorectal adenoma in an American population receiving colonoscopy. J Diabetes Complic. 2013;27:463–466.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jung YS, Park CH, Eun CS, Park DI, Han DS. Statin use and the risk of colorectal adenoma: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1823–1830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jung YS, Park CH, Eun CS, Park DI, Han DS. Metformin use and the risk of colorectal adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32:957–965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lebwohl B, Capiak K, Neugut AI, Kastrinos F. Risk of colorectal adenomas and advanced neoplasia in Hispanic, black and white patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:1467–1473.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maryan Cavicchi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gaëlle Tharsis
    • 1
  • Pascal Burtin
    • 2
  • Philippe Cattan
    • 1
  • Franck Venezia
    • 1
  • Gilles Tordjman
    • 1
  • Agnès Gillet
    • 1
  • Joëlle Samama
    • 1
  • Karine Nahon-Uzan
    • 1
  • David Karsenti
    • 1
  1. 1.Endoscopy UnitClinique de Paris-BercyCharenton le PontFrance
  2. 2.Gastroenterology UnitGustave RoussyVillejuif CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations