New device to implement the adenoma detection rate.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zippi M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5535316 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimTo determine which patients might benefit most from retrograde viewing during colonoscopy through subset analysis of randomized, controlled trial data.MethodsThe Third Eye® Retroscope® Randomized Clinical Evaluation (TERRACE) was a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of a retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device that is used during colonoscopy to provide a second video image which allows viewing of areas on the proximal aspect of haustral folds and flexures that are difficult to see with the colonoscope's forward view. We performed a post-hoc analysis of the TERRACE data to determine whether certain subsets of the patient population would gain more benefit than others from use of the device. Subjects were patients scheduled for colonoscopy for screening, surveillance or diagnostic workup, and each underwent same-day tandem examinations with standard colonoscopy (SC) and Third Eye colonoscopy (TEC), randomized to SC followed by TEC or vice versa.ResultsIndication for colonoscopy was screening in 176/345 subjects (51.0%), surveillance after previous polypectomy in 87 (25.2%) and diagnostic workup in 82 (23.8%). In 4 subjects no indication was specified. Previously reported overall results had shown a net additional adenoma detection rate (ADR) with TEC of 23.2% compared to SC. Relative risk (RR) of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC as the initial procedure was 1.92 (P = 0.029). Post-hoc subset analysis shows additional ADRs for TEC compared to SC were 4.4% for screening, 35.7% for surveillance, 55.4% for diagnostic and 40.7% for surveillance and diagnostic combined. The RR of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC was 1.11 (P = 0.815) for screening, 3.15 (P = 0.014) for surveillance, 8.64 (P = 0.039) for diagnostic and 3.34 (P = 0.003) for surveillance and diagnostic combined. Although a multivariate Poisson regression suggested gender as a possibly significant factor, subset analysis showed that the difference between genders was not statistically significant. Age, bowel prep quality and withdrawal time did not significantly affect the RR of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC. Mean sizes of adenomas detected with TEC and SC were similar at 0.59 cm and 0.56 cm, respectively (P = NS).ConclusionTEC allows detection of significantly more adenomas compared to SC in patients undergoing surveillance or diagnostic workup, but not in screening patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01044732).
| S-EPMC3396192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionQuality measures for colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been proposed to be surveilled for ensuring minimum standards. However, its direct measurement is time consuming and often neglected. Extrapolating ADR and other quality measures from polyp detection rate (PDR) can be a pragmatic alternative.ObjectiveTo determine quotients for estimating ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P-DR) from PDR in an Australian cohort.MethodsConsecutive adult patient colonoscopies during a 1-year period were retrospectively assessed in a single Australian tertiary endoscopy center. Adenoma detection quotient (ADQ) and SSA/P detection quotient (SSA/P-DQ) were defined as the division of ADR and SSA/P-DR by PDR, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of procedures to achieve a stable cumulative ADQ and SSA/P-DQ. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of ADQ and SSA/P-DQ in different subsets.ResultsIn total, 2,657 colonoscopies were performed by 15 endoscopists in 2016. The ADR, SSA/P-DR, and PDR found were 32.2, 6.7, and 47.3%, respectively. The ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values found were 0.68 and 0.14, respectively. After approximately 500 procedures, both ADQ and SSA/P-DQ became stable. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the prediction of ADR from ADQ was excellent for all endoscopists that performed >177 procedures in that year (ICC 0.84).ConclusionsADQ and SSA/P-DQ values were consistent when over 500 procedures were analyzed. ADQ had an excellent correlation with ADR when >177 procedures per endoscopist were evaluated.
| S-EPMC7445665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important measure of colonoscopy quality, as are polyp, advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rates. We investigated whether performance report cards improved these outcome measures.Endoscopists were given report cards comparing their detection rates to the institutional mean on an annual basis. Detection rates were evaluated at baseline, 1 year after report cards (Year 1), and 2 years after report cards (Year 2). Endoscopists were unaware of the study and received no other interventions. The primary outcome was ADR and secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rate. Multivariate regression was performed to adjust for temporal trends in patient, endoscopists, and procedural factors. Seventeen physicians performed 3,118 screening colonoscopies in patients with positive FOBT or family history of colon cancer. The ADR increased from 34.5 % (baseline) to 39.4 % (Year 1) and 41.2 % (Year 2) ( P = 0.0037). The PDR increased from 45 % (baseline) to 48.8 % (Year 1) and 51.8 % (Year 2) ( P = 0.011). There was no significant improvement in advanced ADR or adenocarcinoma detection rates. On multivariate analysis, the ADR increased by 22 % in Year 1 ( P = 0.03) and 30 % in Year 2 ( P = 0.008). Among physicians with a baseline ADR < 25 %, improvement in ADR was even greater, increasing 2.2 times by the end of the study ( P = 0.004). Improvements in ADR were not correlated with specialty although gastroenterologists were 52 % more likely to find an adenoma than general surgeons. Annual performance report cards increased adenoma detection rates, especially among physicians with low ADR < 25 %.
| S-EPMC5500116 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and aimsPatients who receive a colonoscopy from a physician with a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are at higher risk of subsequent colorectal cancer. It is unclear what drives the variation across physicians in ADR. We describe physician characteristics associated with higher ADR.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study a natural language processing system was used to analyze all outpatient colonoscopy examinations and their associated pathology reports from October 2013 to September 2015 for adults age 40 years and older across physicians from 4 diverse health systems. Physician performance on ADR was risk adjusted for differences in patient population and procedure indication. Our sample included 201 physicians performing at least 30 colonoscopy examinations during the study period, totaling 104,618 colonoscopy examinations.ResultsThe mean ADR was 33.2% (range, 6.3%-58.7%). Higher ADR was seen among female physicians (4.2 percentage points higher than men, P = .020), gastroenterologists (9.4 percentage points higher than nongastroenterologists, P < .001), and physicians with ≤9 years since their residency completion (6.0 percentage points higher than physicians who have had 27-51 years of practice, P = .004).ConclusionsGastroenterologists, female physicians, and more recently trained physicians had higher performance in adenoma detection.
| S-EPMC5817032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The proportion of screening colonoscopic examinations performed by a physician that detect one or more adenomas (the adenoma detection rate) is a recommended quality measure. However, little is known about the association between this rate and patients' risks of a subsequent colorectal cancer (interval cancer) and death.Using data from an integrated health care delivery organization, we evaluated the associations between the adenoma detection rate and the risks of colorectal cancer diagnosed 6 months to 10 years after colonoscopy and of cancer-related death. With the use of Cox regression, our estimates of attributable risk were adjusted for the demographic characteristics of the patients, indications for colonoscopy, and coexisting conditions.We evaluated 314,872 colonoscopies performed by 136 gastroenterologists; the adenoma detection rates ranged from 7.4 to 52.5%. During the follow-up period, we identified 712 interval colorectal adenocarcinomas, including 255 advanced-stage cancers, and 147 deaths from interval colorectal cancer. The unadjusted risks of interval cancer according to quintiles of adenoma detection rates, from lowest to highest, were 9.8, 8.6, 8.0, 7.0, and 4.8 cases per 10,000 person-years of follow-up, respectively. Among patients of physicians with adenoma detection rates in the highest quintile, as compared with patients of physicians with detection rates in the lowest quintile, the adjusted hazard ratio for any interval cancer was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.69), for advanced-stage interval cancer, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.64), and for fatal interval cancer, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.65). Each 1.0% increase in the adenoma detection rate was associated with a 3.0% decrease in the risk of cancer (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98).The adenoma detection rate was inversely associated with the risks of interval colorectal cancer, advanced-stage interval cancer, and fatal interval cancer. (Funded by the Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit program and the National Cancer Institute.).
| S-EPMC4036494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Endocuff Vision (ECV) increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) in randomized clinical trials; however, observational effectiveness data are lacking. We evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and practical aspects of ECV use in a large screening-related real-world cohort. Patients and methods In this observational study, patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy from November 2018 to April 2019 comprised the baseline period, and those undergoing it from June to November 2019 comprised the ECV period, where ECV use was discretionary. The primary outcome was ADR, compared: 1) between ECV use and standard colonoscopy across both periods; and 2) between time periods. Secondary outcomes included indication-specific ADR, sessile serrated ADR (SSADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), procedure times, patient comfort scores, and sedation use. Multilevel logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results In 15,814 colonoscopies across both time periods, ADR was 46.7 % with standard colonoscopy and 54.6 % when ECV was used ( P < 0.001). Endoscopists used ECV in 77.6 % of procedures in the ECV period, during which overall ADR rose to 53.2 % compared to 46.3 % in the baseline period ( P < 0.001). ECV use was significantly associated with higher ADR (AOR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.40) after adjusting for relevant covariates including time period. ECV use did not result in lower CIR, longer procedure time, increased sedation use, or poorer comfort scores. Conclusions ECV use is associated with improved ADR without negatively impacting other key procedure and patient-related factors. Future studies should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating ECV into routine screening-related practice.
| S-EPMC8545492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interventions: Treatment group:Embrella-assisted colonoscopy;Control group:Standard colonoscopy
Primary outcome(s): Adenoma detection rate(ADR)
Study Design: Parallel
| 87667 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Interventions: Gold Standard:Pathological examination;Index test:1. 3D imaging device colonoscopy;
2. 2D imaging device colonoscopy.
Primary outcome(s): Adenoma detection rate;SEN, SPE, ACC, AUC of ROC
Study Design: Sequential
| 2684296 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Suboptimal adenoma detection rate (ADR) at colonoscopy is associated with increased risk of interval colorectal cancer. It is uncertain how ADR might be improved. We compared the effect of leadership training versus feedback only on colonoscopy quality in a countrywide randomised trial. DESIGN:40 colonoscopy screening centres with suboptimal performance in the Polish screening programme (centre leader ADR ? 25% during preintervention phase January to December 2011) were randomised to either a Train-Colonoscopy-Leaders (TCLs) programme (assessment, hands-on training, post-training feedback) or feedback only (individual quality measures). Colonoscopies performed June to December 2012 (early postintervention) and January to December 2013 (late postintervention) were used to calculate changes in quality measures. Primary outcome was change in leaders' ADR. Mixed effect models using ORs and 95% CIs were computed. RESULTS:The study included 24,582 colonoscopies performed by 38 leaders and 56,617 colonoscopies performed by 138 endoscopists at the participating centres. The absolute difference between the TCL and feedback groups in mean ADR improvement of leaders was 7.1% and 4.2% in early and late postintervention phases, respectively. The TCL group had larger improvement in ADR in early (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.01; p<0.001) and late (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.66; p=0.004) postintervention phases. In the late postintervention phase, the absolute difference between the TCL and feedback groups in mean ADR improvement of entire centres was 3.9% (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.50; p=0.017). CONCLUSIONS:Teaching centre leaders in colonoscopy training improved important quality measures in screening colonoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01667198.
| S-EPMC4819605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.MethodsA literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I2=82%). ADR improved in both active or passive feedback, irrespective of whether endoscopists knew about being monitored for their performance or not.ConclusionsMonitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.
| S-EPMC7903562 | biostudies-literature