Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient- and procedure-related factors affecting proximal and distal detection rates for polyps and adenomas: results from 1603 screening colonoscopies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Screening colonoscopy is less effective in reducing the incidence of proximal compared to distal colorectal cancer, presumably because of missed adenomas and advanced lesions during endoscopy. Thus, effectiveness and success of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs depend decisively on the quality of the endoscopic procedures.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 1603 average risk screening colonoscopies to calculate and to identify determinants of separate detection rates for proximally and distally located polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas was performed.

Results

56.1 % of 1603 individuals included were men, and the mean age was 60.2 ± 10.2 years. Distal detection rates were markedly higher compared to proximal detection rates for polyps (40.9 vs. 23.8 %), adenomas (21.3 vs. 16.2 %), and advanced adenomas (4.0 vs. 2.0 %). A gradual increase in detection rates with increasing age was found for proximal and distal localization. Gender difference was also seen for polyps and adenomas, but not for advanced adenomas. In multivariate analysis, age <65.0 years and female gender were independently associated with a lower separate polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The use of propofol was the only procedure-related variable significantly associated with higher polyp detection rate.

Conclusion

Since age and gender affect detection rates of proximally and distally located polyps and adenomas, the requirement of a specific gender-related limit in total detection rates may be insufficient as a quality indicator for screening colonoscopies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group (2013) European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 45(1):51–59

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim EC, Lance P (1997) Colorectal polyps and their relationship to cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 26(1):1–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E et al (2008) Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 149(9):638–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 134(5):1570–1595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sung JJ, Lau JY, Young GP et al (2008) Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Gut 57(8):1166–1176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pox C, Aretz S, Bischoff SC et al (2013) S3-guideline colorectal cancer version 1.0. Z Gastroenterol 51(8):753–854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H et al (2012) Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 142(7):1460–1467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366(8):687–696

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Vinden C et al (2004) Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 127(2):452–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al (2006) Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 101(2):343–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z et al (2007) Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 132(1):96–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al (2009) Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 150(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lakoff J, Paszat LF, Saskin R et al (2008) Risk of developing proximal versus distal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6:1117–1121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA et al (2010) The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 139(4):1128–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V et al (2010) Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(2):89–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rex D, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al (2006) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 101(4):873–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A et al (2013) Data quality of the German Screening Colonoscopy Registry. Endoscopy 45(10):813–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fracchia M, Senore C, Armaroli P et al (2010) Assessment of the multiple components of the variability in the adenoma detection rate in sigmoidoscopy screening, and lessons for training. Endoscopy 46(6):448–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Anderson JC, Gonzalez JD, Messina CR et al (2000) Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol 95(10):2784–2787

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Millan MS, Gross P, Manilich E et al (2008) Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 51(8):1217–1220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al (2014) Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 370(14):1298–1306

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Barret M, Boustiere C, Canard JM et al (2013) Factors associated with adenoma detection rate and diagnosis of polyps and colorectal cancer during colonoscopy in France: results of a prospective, nationwide study. PLoS One 8(7), e68947

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee TJW, Rees CJ, Blanks RG et al (2014) Colonoscopic factors associated with adenoma detection in a nation colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopy 46:203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hewett DG, Rex DK (2011) Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 74(2):246–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rex DK, Vemulapalli KC (2013) Retroflexion in colonoscopy: Why? Where? When? How? What value? Gastroenterology 144(5):882–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM et al (2006) Does a negative screening colonoscopy ever need to be repeated? Gut 55(8):1145–1150

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY et al (2000) Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 343:169–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY et al (2002) Results of screening colonoscopy among persons 40 to 49 years of age. N Engl J Med 346:1781–1785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial support

None.

Writing assistance

None.

Potential competing interests

None.

Guarantor of the article

Steffen HM accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and had control of the decision to publish.

Specific author contributions

Steffen HM, Schramm C, and Mbaya N were responsible for planning and conducting the study and interpreting the data. Schramm C, Kuetting F, and Steffen HM were responsible for drafting the manuscript. Demir M, Toex U, and Goeser T were responsible for collecting and interpreting the data. Franklin J and Schramm C were responsible for statistical analysis of the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany

    Christoph Schramm, Nadine Mbaya, Muenevver Demir, Fabian Kuetting, Ulrich Toex, Tobias Goeser & Hans-Michael Steffen

  2. Institute for Medical statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Jeremy Franklin

Authors
  1. Christoph Schramm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadine Mbaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy Franklin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muenevver Demir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fabian Kuetting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ulrich Toex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tobias Goeser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hans-Michael Steffen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Schramm.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 31 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schramm, C., Mbaya, N., Franklin, J. et al. Patient- and procedure-related factors affecting proximal and distal detection rates for polyps and adenomas: results from 1603 screening colonoscopies. Int J Colorectal Dis 30, 1715–1722 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2360-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2360-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation