Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Risk factors for polyp retrieval failure in colonoscopy.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is able to diagnose, resect and retrieve colonic polyps. Although retrieval of resected polyps is still globally advised, it is not always successful. We aimed to define the risk factors for polyp retrieval failure in colonoscopy. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study assessed 3507 consecutive and non-urgent colonoscopies, performed between September 2011 and December 2012. Colonoscopies were included in our analysis if the diagnosis of at least one polyp was established, and one or more snare polypectomies were performed. Demographic and technical data were collected according to the patient's endoscopy report. RESULTS: A total of 1109 polyps were analyzed, corresponding to 496 colonoscopies from 483 different patients. We found that 53 (4.8%) of the resected polyps were not retrieved. In a univariate analysis, the factors associated with polyp retrieval failure were: age, polyp size, resection technique, bowel preparation, location and the presence of a previous colorectal surgery (p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, a previous colorectal surgery, resection by cold snare, location in the right colon, inadequate bowel preparation and a polyp size up to 5 mm were independently associated with higher polyp retrieval failure (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Different and well-defined factors were associated with polyp retrieval failure. Because bowel preparation was the only modifiable factor identified, a special focus should be given to this topic.

SUBMITTER: Fernandes C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4528205 | biostudies-other | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Risk Factors for Hemorrhoids on Screening Colonoscopy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Constipation, a low fiber diet, sedentary lifestyle and gravidity are commonly assumed to increase the risk of hemorrhoids. However, evidence regarding these factors is limited. We examined the association between commonly cited risk factors and the prevalence of hemorrhoids. METHODS:We performed a cross sectional study of participants who underwent a colonoscopy in a colorectal adenoma prevention trial and who had a detailed assessment of bowel habits, diet and activity. The presence of hemorrhoids was extracted from the subjects' colonoscopy reports. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals while adjusting for age and sex. RESULTS:The study included 2,813 participants. Of these, 1,074 had hemorrhoids recorded. Constipation was associated with an increased prevalence of hemorrhoids (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.11, 1.86). Of the fiber subtypes, high grain fiber intake was associated with a reduced risk (OR for quartile 4 versus quartile 1 = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62, 0.98). We found no association when comparing gravid and nulligravida women (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62-1.40). Sedentary behavior was associated with a reduced risk (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98), but not physical activity (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66-1.03). Neither being overweight nor obese was associated with the presence of hemorrhoids (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.09 and OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70-1.06). CONCLUSIONS:Constipation is associated with an increased risk of hemorrhoids. Gravidity and physical activity do not appear to be associated. High grain fiber intake and sedentary behavior are associated with a decreased risk of hemorrhoids.

| S-EPMC4583402 | biostudies-literature

Colonoscopy polyp detection and classification: Dataset creation and comparative evaluations.

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common types of cancer with a high mortality rate. Colonoscopy is the preferred procedure for CRC screening and has proven to be effective in reducing CRC mortality. Thus, a reliable computer-aided polyp detection and classification system can significantly increase the effectiveness of colonoscopy. In this paper, we create an endoscopic dataset collected from various sources and annotate the ground truth of polyp location and classification results with the help of experienced gastroenterologists. The dataset can serve as a benchmark platform to train and evaluate the machine learning models for polyp classification. We have also compared the performance of eight state-of-the-art deep learning-based object detection models. The results demonstrate that deep CNN models are promising in CRC screening. This work can serve as a baseline for future research in polyp detection and classification.

| S-EPMC8370621 | biostudies-literature

Polyp detection rates as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC6338539 | biostudies-literature

Weakly Supervised Polyp Segmentation in Colonoscopy Images Using Deep Neural Networks.

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, and preventive screening modalities such as colonoscopy have been shown to noticeably decrease CRC incidence and mortality. Improving colonoscopy quality remains a challenging task due to limiting factors including the training levels of colonoscopists and the variability in polyp sizes, morphologies, and locations. Deep learning methods have led to state-of-the-art systems for the identification of polyps in colonoscopy videos. In this study, we show that deep learning can also be applied to the segmentation of polyps in real time, and the underlying models can be trained using mostly weakly labeled data, in the form of bounding box annotations that do not contain precise contour information. A novel dataset, Polyp-Box-Seg of 4070 colonoscopy images with polyps from over 2000 patients, is collected, and a subset of 1300 images is manually annotated with segmentation masks. A series of models is trained to evaluate various strategies that utilize bounding box annotations for segmentation tasks. A model trained on the 1300 polyp images with segmentation masks achieves a dice coefficient of 81.52%, which improves significantly to 85.53% when using a weakly supervised strategy leveraging bounding box images. The Polyp-Box-Seg dataset, together with a real-time video demonstration of the segmentation system, are publicly available.

| S-EPMC9144698 | biostudies-literature

The Polyp Manager: a new tool for optimal polyp documentation during colonoscopy. A pilot study.

Project description:Conventional reporting of polyps is often incomplete. We tested the Polyp Manager (PM), a new software application permitting the endoscopist to document polyps in real time during colonoscopy. We studied completeness of polyp descriptions, user-friendliness and the potential time benefit.In two Dutch hospitals colonoscopies were performed with PM (as a touchscreen endoscopist-operated device or nurse-operated desktop application). Completeness of polyp descriptions was compared to a historical group with conventional reporting (CRH). Prospectively, we compared user-friendliness (VAS-scores) and time benefit of the endoscopist-operated PM to conventional reporting (CR) in one hospital. Duration of colonoscopy and time needed to report polyps and provide a pathology request were measured. Provided that using PM does not prolong colonoscopy, the sum of the latter two was considered as a potential time-benefit if the PM were fully integrated into a digital reporting system.A total of 144 regular colonoscopies were included in the study. Both groups were comparable with regard to patient characteristics, duration of colonoscopy and number of polyps. Using the PM did reduce incomplete documentation of the following items in CRH-reports: location (96 % vs 82 %, P = 0.01), size (95 % vs 89 %, P = 0.03), aspect (71 % vs 36 %, P < 0.001) and completeness of removal (61 % vs 37 %, P < 0.001). In the prospective study 23 PM-colonoscopies where compared to 28 CR-colonoscopies. VAS-scores were significantly higher in the endoscopist-operated PM group. Time to report was 01:27 ± 01:43 minutes (median + interquartile range) in the entire group (PM as CR), reflecting potential time benefit per colonoscopy.The PM is a user-friendly tool that seems to improve completeness of polyp reporting. Once integrated with digital reporting systems, it is probably time saving as well.

| S-EPMC4874792 | biostudies-other

Accurate Identification of Colonoscopy Quality and Polyp Findings Using Natural Language Processing.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to test the ability of a commercially available natural language processing (NLP) tool to accurately extract examination quality-related and large polyp information from colonoscopy reports with varying report formats. BACKGROUND:Colonoscopy quality reporting often requires manual data abstraction. NLP is another option for extracting information; however, limited data exist on its ability to accurately extract examination quality and polyp findings from unstructured text in colonoscopy reports with different reporting formats. STUDY DESIGN:NLP strategies were developed using 500 colonoscopy reports from Kaiser Permanente Northern California and then tested using 300 separate colonoscopy reports that underwent manual chart review. Using findings from manual review as the reference standard, we evaluated the NLP tool's sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy for identifying colonoscopy examination indication, cecal intubation, bowel preparation adequacy, and polyps ?10?mm. RESULTS:The NLP tool was highly accurate in identifying examination quality-related variables from colonoscopy reports. Compared with manual review, sensitivity for screening indication was 100% (95% confidence interval: 95.3%-100%), PPV was 90.6% (82.3%-95.8%), and accuracy was 98.2% (97.0%-99.4%). For cecal intubation, sensitivity was 99.6% (98.0%-100%), PPV was 100% (98.5%-100%), and accuracy was 99.8% (99.5%-100%). For bowel preparation adequacy, sensitivity was 100% (98.5%-100%), PPV was 100% (98.5%-100%), and accuracy was 100% (100%-100%). For polyp(s) ?10?mm, sensitivity was 90.5% (69.6%-98.8%), PPV was 100% (82.4%-100%), and accuracy was 95.2% (88.8%-100%). CONCLUSION:NLP yielded a high degree of accuracy for identifying examination quality-related and large polyp information from diverse types of colonoscopy reports.

| S-EPMC5847417 | biostudies-literature

Risk Factors of Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy.

Project description:The success of a colonoscopy in detecting and removing pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions depends heavily on the quality of bowel preparation. Despite efforts, 20-44% of colonoscopy participants have an inadequate bowel preparation. We aimed to assess and compare risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and for the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasms in routine screening practice. In this cross-sectional study, among 8125 participants of screening colonoscopy in Germany with a comprehensive assessment of sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and medical history, we examined factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and with findings of advanced neoplasms using adjusted log-binomial regression models. Among the identified risk factors assessed, three factors were identified that were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation: age ≥ 70 years (adjusted prevalence ratios, aPR, 1.50 95%CI 1.31-1.71), smoking (aPR 1.29 95%CI 1.11-1.50) and abdominal symptoms (aPR 1.14 95%CI 1.02-1.27). The same risk factors were also associated with the prevalence of advanced neoplasms in our study (aPR 1.72, 1.62 and 1.44, respectively). The risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation in this study were also associated with a higher risk for advanced neoplasms. Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy might lead to missed colorectal cancer (CRC) precursors and the late diagnosis of CRC. People at high risk of advanced neoplasms are in particular need of enhanced bowel preparation.

| S-EPMC8233947 | biostudies-literature

Index colonoscopy-related risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers.

Project description:Background and aimsPostcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) are defined as those detected ≤10 years after an index colonoscopy negative for cancer, but modifiable risk factors are not well established in large, community-based populations.MethodsWe evaluated risk factors from the index colonoscopy for PCCRCs diagnosed 1 to 10 years after an index colonoscopy using a case-control design. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsA proximal polyp ≥10 mm (OR, 8.18; 95% CI, 4.59-14.60), distal polyp ≥10 mm (OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.65-6.58), adenoma with (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.83-5.68) and without advanced histology (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.37-2.55), and an incomplete colonoscopy (OR, 5.52; 95% CI, 2.98-10.21) were associated with PCCRC. Risk factors for early versus late cancers (12-36 months vs >36 months to 10 years after examination) included incomplete polyp excision in the colonic segment of the subsequent cancer (OR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.35-9.65); failure to examine the segment (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.27-4.60); and a polyp ≥10 mm in the segment (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.53-3.70). A total of 559 of 1206 patients with PCCRC (46.4%) had 1 or more risk factors that were significant for PCCRC (incomplete examination, large polyp, or any adenoma).ConclusionsIn a large community-based study with comprehensive capture of PCCRCs, almost half of PCCRCs had potentially modifiable factors related to polyp surveillance or removal and examination completeness. These represent potential high-yield targets to further increase the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

| S-EPMC7486003 | biostudies-literature

Artificial Intelligence-Aid Colonoscopy Vs. Conventional Colonoscopy for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review of 7 Discordant Meta-Analyses.

Project description:Objectives: Multiple meta-analyses which investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of artificial intelligence (AI)-aid colonoscopy (AIC) vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC) in the detection of polyp and adenoma have been published. However, a definitive conclusion has not yet been generated. This systematic review selected from discordant meta-analyses to draw a definitive conclusion about whether AIC is better than CC for the detection of polyp and adenoma. Methods: We comprehensively searched potentially eligible literature in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from their inceptions until to April 2021. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality. Two investigators independently used the Jadad decision algorithm to select high-quality meta-analyses which summarized the best available evidence. Results: Seven meta-analyses met our selection criteria finally. AMSTAR score ranged from 8 to 10, and PRISMA score ranged from 23 to 26. According to the Jadad decision algorithm, two high-quality meta-analyses were selected. These two meta-analyses suggested that AIC was superior to CC for colonoscopy outcomes, especially for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, we conclude that AIC should be preferentially selected for the route screening of colorectal lesions because it has potential value of increasing the polyp and adenoma detection. However, the continued improvement of AIC in differentiating the shape and pathology of colorectal lesions is needed.

| S-EPMC8792899 | biostudies-literature

Colonoscopic polyp detection rate is stable throughout the workday including evening colonoscopy sessions.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: Polyp detection rate (PDR) is an accepted measure of colonoscopy quality. Several factors may influence PDR including time of procedure and order of colonoscopy within a session. Our unit provides evening colonoscopy lists (6-9 pm). We examined whether colonoscopy performance declines in the evening. DESIGN: Data for all National Health Service (NHS) outpatient colonoscopies performed at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in 2011 were examined. Timing, demographics, indication and colonoscopy findings were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Data from 2576 colonoscopies were included: 1163 (45.1%) in the morning, 1123 (43.6%) in the afternoon and 290 (11.3%) in the evening. Overall PDR was 40.80%. Males, increasing age and successful caecal intubation were all significantly associated with higher polyp detection. The indications 'faecal occult blood screening' (p<0.001) and 'polyp surveillance' (p<0.001) were strongly positively associated and 'anaemia' (p=0.01) was negatively associated with PDR. Following adjustment for covariates, there was no significant difference in PDR between sessions. With the morning as the reference value, the odds ratio for polyp detection in the afternoon and evening were 0.93 (95% CI = 0.72-1.18) and 1.15 (95%CI = 0.82-1.61) respectively. PDR was not affected by rank of colonoscopy within a list, sedation dose or trainee-involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Time of day did not affect polyp detection rate in clinical practice. Evening colonoscopy had equivalent efficacy and is an effective tool in meeting increasing demands for endoscopy. Standardisation was shown to have a considerable effect as demographics, indication and endoscopist varied substantially between sessions. Evening sessions were popular with a younger population.

| S-EPMC4118755 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data