Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate
- 82 Downloads
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.
To evaluate in a 2-year monocentric observational study patient-dependent and endoscopist-dependent factors influencing ADR and SPDR in daily practice.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsAdenoma Sessile serrated polyp Colonoscopy Detection rates Advanced neoplasia Withdrawal time
Adenoma detection rate
Serrated polyp detection rare
Boston Bowel Preparation Scale
Advanced neoplasia detection rate
Traditional serrated adenomas
Fecal immunochemical test
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.
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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