Prevalence of ‘one and done’ in adenoma detection rates: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

Abstract

Background and study aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR), the proportion of an endoscopist’s screening colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, is an established quality metric. Several publications have suggested that a technique referred to as “one and done,” where less attention is paid to additional polyp detection following discovery of one likely adenoma, may be occurring [1] [2] [3]. To investigate whether this practice occurs and provide additional context to the significance of ADR, we examined ADR by single and multiple adenomas in the statewide New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR).

Patients and methods A total of 25,324 NHCR patients receiving screening colonoscopies between 2009 and 2014 by 69 endoscopists were analyzed. ADR was dichotomized into high (≥ 20 %) and low (< 20 %) based on 2006 recommended targets in place during the time of the study. ADR-plus (the average number of adenomas in colonoscopies with > 1 adenoma) was dichotomized at mean values into high (≥ 1.5) and low (< 1.5). As suggested by others, a high ADR but low ADR-plus was used to indicate the “one and done” approach.

Results Among endoscopists with an ADR ≥ 20 %, only 5 (7.2 %) had low ADR-plus values and were classified as “one and done.” Results for serrated polyp detection were similar. ADR and ADR-plus decreased monotonically with increasing years since residency (P values for trend ADR = 0.02; ADR-plus = 0.003) after adjusting for patient risk factors.

Conclusion “One and done” infrequently occurred among endoscopists with high ADR in a large statewide registry. The need to replace ADR with other polyp detection metrics (such as ADR-plus) to accurately ascertain performance quality is not supported by these findings.

• References

• 1 Wang HS, Pisegna J, Modi R. et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 71-78
• 2 Liem B, Gupta N. Adenoma detection rate: the perfect colonoscopy quality measure or is there more?. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 3: 19
• 3 Kim SY, Kim HS. Adenoma detection rate: is it the master key for the colonoscopy quality indicator?. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 3: 5
• 4 Sauer AG, Siegel RL, Jemal A. et al. Updated review of prevalence of major risk factors and use of screening tests for cancer in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26: 1192-1208
• 5 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 7-30
• 6 Anderson JC, Butterly LF. Colonoscopy: quality indicators. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2015; 6: e77
• 7 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S16-28
• 8 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
• 9 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 10 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
• 11 Kahi CJ, Vemulapalli KC, Johnson CS. et al. Improving measurement of the adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy quality metric: the Indiana University experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 448-454
• 12 Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. Quality indicators for colorectal cancer screening for colonoscopy. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 15: 59-68
• 13 Carney PAGM, Butterly LF, Dietrich AJ. The design and development of a population-based colonoscopy registry. J Registry Management 2006; 33: 91-99
• 14 Greene MA, Butterly LF, Goodrich M. et al. Matching colonoscopy and pathology data in population-based registries: development of a novel algorithm and the initial experience of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 334-340
• 15 Lee YM, Huh KC. Clinical and biological features of interval colorectal cancer. Clin Endosc 2017; 50: 254-260
• 16 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Weiss JE. et al. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1188-1194
• 17 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
• 18 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Variation of adenoma prevalence by age, sex, race, and colon location in a large population: implications for screening and quality programs. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 172-180
• 19 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA. et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 177-193
• 20 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
• 21 Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond JH. et al. Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 1335-1340
• 22 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
• 23 Aniwan S, Orkoonsawat P, Viriyautsahakul V. et al. The secondary quality indicator to improve prediction of adenoma miss rate apart from adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 723-729
• 24 Greenspan M, Rajan KB, Baig A. et al. Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1286-1292
• 25 Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
• 26 Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D. et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut 2013; 62: 236-241
• 27 Wallace MB. Improving colorectal adenoma detection: technology or technique?. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 1221-1223
• 28 van Doorn SC, Klanderman RB, Hazewinkel Y. et al. Adenoma detection rate varies greatly during colonoscopy training. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 122-129
• 29 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 656-665
• 30 Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N. et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892-1898
• 31 Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS. et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 925-931
• 32 Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM. et al. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1134-1139
• 33 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091-1098
• 34 Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R. et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut 2016; 65: 616-624
• 35 US Census Bureau. Demographic and Economic Profiles of New Hampshire’s Electorate. 2016 Available at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-tps11.html