Polyp detection rates as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy

Abstract

Background Adenoma and Polyp Detection Rates (ADR and PDR) are advocated as general performance measures for screening and clinical colonoscopy, but their evidence is largely derived from screening data. This study compares PDRs in colonoscopy for screening versus clinical indications.

Methods Consecutive patients at two Norwegian centers were examined by eight endoscopists either for colonoscopy screening in a randomized colonoscopy screening trial (Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer, NordICC) or for clinical indications during the same time period (January 2013 to December 2014). PDR-5 mm, defined as the proportion of colonoscopies with detection of at least one polyp with diameter ≥ 5 mm, was measured prospectively. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models and calculated the adjusted odds ratios (OR) to evaluate factors for differences in PDR-5 mm between screening and clinical colonoscopies.

Results The study included 2939 clinical and 771 screening colonoscopies. The PDR-5 mm was 26 % and 31 %, respectively (P = 0.005). Among sex, age, cecum intubation, bowel cleansing, and endoscopist, only the latter explained the higher PDR-5 mm in screening compared to routine colonoscopy. In the fully adjusted logistic regression model, the detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm was not associated with indication for colonoscopy. The OR for polyp detection in screening vs. routine colonoscopy was 1.04; 95 % confidence interval 0.85 – 1.27.

Conclusion In this study, the differences in PDR-5 mm between clinical and screening colonoscopies could be explained by the endoscopist. Accordingly, PDR-5 mm benchmarks may be similar for clinical and screening colonoscopy.

• References

• 1 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 2 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 3 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
• 4 Williams JE, Le TD, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate as a quality measure for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 498-506
• 5 Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 576-582
• 6 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
• 7 Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Loberg M. et al. Population-based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med 2016; 176: 894-902
• 8 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
• 9 Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A. et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 493-497
• 10 Boroff ES, Disbrow M, Crowell MD. et al. Adenoma and polyp detection rates in colonoscopy according to indication. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017; 2017: 7207595
• 11 Niv Y. Polyp detection rate may predict adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 30: 247-251
• 12 Klein JL, Okcu M, Preisegger KH. et al. Distribution, size and shape of colorectal adenomas as determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate: Influence of age, sex and colonoscopy indication. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 438-448
• 13 Boroff ES, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG. et al. Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 993-999
• 14 Gohel TD, Burke CA, Lankaala P. et al. Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1137-1142