Download PDF
Endoscopy 2020; 52(09): 763-772
DOI: 10.1055/a-1151-8691
Original article

Are adenoma and serrated polyp detection rates correlated with endoscopists’ sensitivity of optical diagnosis?

Maxime E. S. Bronzwaer
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Jasper L. A. Vleugels
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Sascha C. van Doorn
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Marcel G. W. Dijkgraaf
2   Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
,
Paul Fockens
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Evelien Dekker
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
on behalf of the DISCOUNT-2 study group › Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Endoscopists with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) detect these polyps more frequently, which may be attributable to better recognition of their endoscopic features. Little is known about the association between endoscopic lesion detection and differentiation skills. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps.

Methods We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the DISCOUNT-2 study, including complete colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performed by endoscopists who performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies. The correlations between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis were calculated using Pearson’s rho correlation coefficient.

Results 24 endoscopists performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies, resulting in a total of 2889 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 84.5 % (range 71.4 % – 95.3 %) and overall PSPDR was 13.7 % (4.3 % – 29.0 %). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps were 94.5 % (83.3 % – 100 %) and 74.0 % (37.5 % – 94.1 %), respectively. No correlation could be demonstrated between the ADR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas (−0.20; P = 0.35) or between the PSPDR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for serrated polyps (−0.12; P = 0.57).

Conclusions In a homogeneous FIT-positive population, no correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps could be demonstrated. These exploratory results suggest that lesion detection and differentiation require different endoscopic skills. Further prospective studies are needed; until then, monitoring of both performance indicators is important to secure optimal efficacy of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

 1 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sint Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands


 2 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medisch Centrum Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands


 3 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Spaarne Ziekenhuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands


 4 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis Oost, Amsterdam, The Netherlands


 5 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Slotervaart Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands


 6 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands


 7 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands


 8 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands


 9 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kennemer Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands


10 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, West Fries Gasthuis, Hoorn, The Netherlands


11 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sint Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis/Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis West, Amsterdam, The Netherlands


12 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands


Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 28 March 2018

Accepted: 10 March 2020

Article published online:
29 April 2020

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. NEJM 2012; 366: 687-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. NEJM 1993; 329: 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA. et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1315-1329 ; quiz 4, 1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bettington M, Walker N, Clouston A. et al. The serrated pathway to colorectal carcinoma: current concepts and challenges. Histopathology 2013; 62: 367-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA. et al. Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2588-2596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z. et al. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 96-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Stoffel EM, Erichsen R, Froslev T. et al. Clinical and molecular characteristics of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2016; 151: 870-878 e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mansouri D, McMillan DC, McIlveen E. et al. A comparison of tumour and host prognostic factors in screen-detected vs nonscreen-detected colorectal cancer: a contemporaneous study. Colorectal Dis 2016; 18: 967-975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O'Brien MJ. et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. NEJM 1993; 328: 901-906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ. et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. Gut 2012; 61: 1576-1582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sanduleanu S, le Clercq CM, Dekker E. et al. Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature. Gut 2015; 64: 1257-1267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Martinez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA. et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 832-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA. et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS. et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S. et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nishihara R, Ogino S, Chan AT. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after screening. NEJM 2013; 369: 2355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hazewinkel Y, Lopez-Ceron M, East JE. et al. Endoscopic features of sessile serrated adenomas: validation by international experts using high-resolution white-light endoscopy and narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 916-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ignjatovic A, East JE, Suzuki N. et al. Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 1171-1178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rex DK. Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1174-1181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 East JE, Vleugels JL, Roelandt P. et al. Advanced endoscopic imaging: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technology Review. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 1029-1045
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rex DK, Kahi C, O'Brien M. et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 419-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kaminski MF, Hassan C, Bisschops R. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 435-449
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F. et al. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy). Gut 2017; 66: 1233-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hilsden RJ, Bridges R, Dube C. et al. Defining benchmarks for adenoma detection rate and adenomas per colonoscopy in patients undergoing colonoscopy due to a positive fecal immunochemical test. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1743-1749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL. et al. Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 98-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 856-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bretagne JF, Hamonic S, Piette C. et al. Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening program based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 335-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Juliar BE. et al. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1288-1295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 IJspeert JE, van Doorn SC, van der Brug YM. et al. The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 870-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 IJspeert JE, de Wit K, van der Vlugt M. et al. Prevalence, distribution and risk of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps at a center with a high adenoma detection rate and experienced pathologists. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 740-746
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Vleugels JLA, Dijkgraaf MGW, Hazewinkel Y. et al. Effects of training and feedback on accuracy of predicting rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions and selection of surveillance intervals by endoscopists performing optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 1682-1693.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport). Protocol for the Dutch Bowel Cancer Screening Programme [In Dutch]. 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport). Protocol for the authorization and auditing of colonoscopy centers and endoscopists, version 1. National Screening Programme for Bowel Cancer [In Dutch]. 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 IJspeert JE, Bastiaansen BA, van Leerdam ME. et al. Development and validation of the WASP classification system for optical diagnosis of adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Gut 2016; 65: 963-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rees CJ, Bevan R, Zimmermann-Fraedrich K. et al. Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators. Gut 2016; 65: 2045-2060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Rees CJ, Thomas GibsonS, Rutter MD. et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016; 65: 1923-1929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM. et al. Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 2355-2361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Castor Electronic Data Capture. Amsterdam: 2016 Available from: Accessed: 30 March 2020 https://www.castoredc.com/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH. et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. 4th. edn. Lyon, France: IARC; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Dekker EL, van Leerdam ME, Hazewinkel Y. et al. Nederlandse Richtlijn Coloscopie Surveillance. Available from: Accessed: 25 March 2020 2013 http://wwwmdlnl/uploads/240/1308/Richtlijn_Coloscopie_Surveillance_definitief_2013.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Atkins L, Hunkeler EM, Jensen CD. et al. Factors influencing variation in physician adenoma detection rates: a theory-based approach for performance improvement. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 617-626 e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Pohl H, Bensen SP, Toor A. et al. Quality of optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps and associated factors. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 817-822
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Vleugels JL, Hazewinkel Y, Fockens P. et al. Natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a systematic literature review. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1169-1176.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar