Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(06): E796-E801
DOI: 10.1055/a-1396-3718
Original article

Assessment of quality benchmarks in adenoma detection in Mexico

Nancy E. Aguilar-Olivos
1   Medica Sur Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Ricardo Balanzá
1   Medica Sur Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Fernando Rojas-Mendoza
1   Medica Sur Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Rodrigo Soto-Solis
2   Angeles Pedregral Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Mario A. Ballesteros-Amozurrutia
2   Angeles Pedregral Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Norma González-Uribe
2   Angeles Pedregral Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Justo A. Fernández-Rivero
1   Medica Sur Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Several Latin American countries, including Mexico, have reported an increase in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. The effectiveness of a colonoscopy in preventing CRC depends on the quality of the procedure, for which the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most trusted indicators. Awareness of ADR can improve the quality of colonoscopies through proper feedback and training of the specialists. The goal of this study was to estimate the ADR among Mexican endoscopists with experience in CRC screening and to compare it with previously reported data from this country.

Methods We carried out a retrospective study to analyze ADR data in Mexico. The information was obtained from a group of certified endoscopists and compared with the former published data from Mexico.

Results We found a current ADR of 24.6 % (95 %CI, 22.4 %–26.8 %) from 1,478 colonoscopies performed by eight endoscopists in two third-level private hospitals. The average ADR reported in previous publications was 15.2 % (95 %CI, 13.3 %–17.1 %). Statistical analysis showed differences between our results and those from previous studies (24.6 % vs. 15.2 %, P < 0.001).

Conclusions The actual ADR in Mexico is higher than previously reported. Previous low ADR values could be explained by poorly performed colonoscopies rather than by low adenoma and CRC incidence in our country.



Publication History

Received: 27 August 2020

Accepted: 22 January 2021

Article published online:
27 May 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I. et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M. et al. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut 2017; 66: 683-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 18-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bishay K, Causada-Calo N, Scaffidi MA. et al. Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 1030-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Baker FA, Mari A, Hosadurg D. et al. The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate. Ann Gastroenterol 2019; 32: 278-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Penz D, Ferlitsch A, Waldmann E. et al. Impact of adenoma detection rate on detection of advanced adenomas and endoscopic adverse events in a study of over 200,000 screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 135-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gutiérrez-Serrano R, Vázquez-Mendoza G, García-Jiménez ES. et al. Tasa de detección de pólipos en pacientes con síndrome de intestino irritable. Revista Médica MD 2019; 10: 95-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Andujar-Amor MA C-GM, Manrique MA, Pérez-Corona T. et al. Rendimiento diagnóstico del dispositivo Endocuff en la detección de adenomas. Experiencia en el Hospital Juárez de México. Endoscopia 2018; 30: 7-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gonzalez-Fernandez C, Garcia-Rangel D, Aguilar-Olivos NE. et al. Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1061-1068
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Peniche-Moguel PA Z-GA, García-Guerrero V, Corral-Medina A. et al. Comparación de la prevalencia de adenomas detectados mediante colonoscopio con CAP accesorio (endocuff) versus colonoscopio estándar. Endoscopia 2016; 28: 143-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zamora-Morales MZ-GA, García-Guerrero VA, Corral-Medina A. et al. Determinación de tasa de adenomas desapercibidos en pacientes con riesgo promedio de cáncer colorrectal con preparación intestinal inadecuada. Endoscopia 2016; 28: 49-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 García-Osogobio ST-ÁF, Méndez N, Uribe-Esquivel M. Results of the first program of colorectal cancer screening in Mexico. Endoscopia 2015; 27: 59-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 de Lascurain-Morhan E. Prevalence of adenomas and carcinomas of the colon. Results of the rectosigmoid exam. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2001; 66: 131-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rex DK, Repici A, Gross SA. et al. High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 335-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jain M, Vij M, Srinivas M. et al. Spectrum of colonic polyps in a South Indian urban cohort. J Dig Endosc 2017; 8: 119-122
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sedlack RE. Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 355-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pace D, Borgaonkar M, Evans B. et al. Annual colonoscopy volume and maintenance of competency for surgeons. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2630-2635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Kretschmann J. et al. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German Screening Colonoscopy Program. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 356-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Williet N, Tournier Q, Vernet C. et al. Effect of endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 846-860
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Choi E, Lee S, Nhung BC. et al. Cancer mortality-to-incidence ratio as an indicator of cancer management outcomes in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Epidemiol Health 2017; 39: e2017006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Delavari A, Bishehsari F, Salimzadeh H. et al. Adenoma detection rates in an opportunistic screening colonoscopy program in Iran, a country with rising colorectal cancer incidence. BMC Gastroenterol 2014; 14: 196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ishibashi F, Fukushima K, Kobayashi K. et al. Individual feedback and monitoring of endoscopist performance improves the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a prospective case-control study. Surg Endosc 2020; DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07672-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Leung FW. Benchmarking and quality-screening colonoscopy. J Interv Gastroenterol 2012; 2: 100-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gessl I, Waldmann E, Penz D. et al. Evaluation of adenomas per colonoscopy and adenomas per positive participant as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 496-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Coriat R, Lecler A, Lamarque D. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units. PLoS One 2012 7: e33957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar