Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: Results from the new hampshire colonoscopy registry

American Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 109, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 417-426

  Butterly, Lynn ^a,b   Robinson, Christina M ^b   Anderson, Joseph C ^b,c   Weiss, Julia E ^b   Goodrich, Martha ^b   Onega, Tracy L ^d   Amos, Christopher I ^b   Beach, Michael L ^b  

^a DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOMA; ADENOMATOUS POLYP; ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY SURGERY; ARTICLE; CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT SERRATED POLYP; COLON POLYP; COLON TUMOR; COLONOSCOPY; COMMUNITY CARE; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; ENDOSCOPIST; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPERPLASIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGISTER; SERRATED POLYP; UNITED STATES;

ADENOMATOUS POLYPS; AGED; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW HAMPSHIRE; REGISTRIES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84895780093     PISSN: 00029270     EISSN: 15720241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.442     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 106.
2. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977.
3. Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R et al. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001; 48: 812.
4. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687.
5. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873.
6. Millan MS, Gross P, Manilich E et al. Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1217.
7. 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.
8. Terdiman JP, McQuaid KR. Surveillance guidelines should be updated to recognize the importance of serrated polyps. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1444.
9. Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 42.
10. Burnett-Hartman AN, Newcomb PA, Phipps AI et al. Colorectal endoscopy, advanced adenomas, and sessile serrated polyps: implications for proximal colon cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1213.
11. Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 576.
12. Williams JE, Le TD, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate as a quality measure for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 498.
13. Atkin W, Rogers P, Cardwell C et al. Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1247.
14. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533.
15. Benson ME, Reichelderfer M, Said A et al. Variation in colonoscopic technique and adenoma detection rates at an academic gastroenterology unit. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 166.
16. 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.
17. Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Juliar BE et al. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1288.
18. Sanchez W, Harewood GC, Petersen BT. Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1941.
19. Faigel DO, Cotton PB. The London OMED position statement for credentialing and quality assurance in digestive endoscopy. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 1069.
20. Hewett DG, Rex DK. Improving colonoscopy quality through health-care payment reform. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1925.
21. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the US. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296.
22. Klabunde CN, Cronin KA, Breen N et al. Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 20: 1611.
23. 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.
24. Overholt BF, Brooks-Belli L, Grace M et al. Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: e80.
25. Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20.
26. Munson GW, Harewood GC, Francis DL. Time of day variation in polyp detection rate for colonoscopies performed on a 3-h shift schedule. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 467.
27. Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Th er 2006; 24: 965-71.
28. Liang JJ, Bissett I, Kalady M et al. Importance of serrated polyps in colorectal carcinogenesis. ANZ J Surg 2013; 8: 325-30.
29. de Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop EM, Bossuyt PM et al. Diff erences in proximal serrated polyp detection among endoscopists are associated with variability in withdrawal time. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 617-23.
30. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S16-28.
31. Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-7.
32. 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: 236-41.
33. Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy-a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476-81.
34. Liang J, Kalady MF, Appau K et al. Serrated polyp detection rate during screening colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 1323-7.
35. Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-34.
36. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-57.
37. 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: 1315-29.
38. Butterly LF, Goodrich M, Onega T et al. Improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening: assessment of familial risk. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 754-60.
39. Carney P, Butterly L, Goodrich M et al. Design and development of a population-based colonoscopy registry. J Registry Management 2006; 33: 91-9.
40. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, 2012.
41. Conover W. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 2nd edn. John Wiley &Sons, Inc., NewYork, NY, 1980, pp 99-104.
42. Raghunathan T, Lepkowski J, van Hoewyk J et al. A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Survey Methodol 2001; 27: 85-95.
43. Freedman DA. Bootstrapping regression models. Ann Stat 1981; 9: 1218-28.
44. Li D, Jin C, McCulloch C et al. Association of large serrated polyps with synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 695-702.
45. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8.
46. Brenner H, Hoff meister M, Arndt V et al. Protection from right-and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 89-95.
47. Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-9.
48. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-8.
49. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE et al. Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of polyps missed by colonoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 1769-72.
50. Harewood GC, Petersen BT, Ott BJ. Prospective assessment of the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance. Aliment Pharmacol Th er 2006; 24: 313-8.
51. 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: 1892-8.
52. Taber A, Romagnuolo J. Effect of simply recording colonoscopy withdrawal time on polyp and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 782-6.
53. Hilsden RJ. Is polyp detection rate a valid proxy for adenoma detection rate for measuring the technical quality of colonoscopy? Gastroenterology 2010; 138: S57.
54. Gellad ZF, Weiss DG, Ahnen DJ et al. Colonoscopy withdrawal time and risk of neoplasia at 5 years: results from VA Cooperative Studies Program 380. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1746-52.