Anatomic and advanced adenoma detection rates as quality metrics determined via natural language processing

American Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 109, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1844-1849

  Gawron, Andrew J ^a   Thompson, William K ^b   Keswani, Rajesh N ^a   Rasmussen, Luke V ^a   Kho, Abel N ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVANCED ADENOMA DETECTION RATE; AGED; ANATOMIC ADENOMA DETECTION RATE; ANATOMICAL CONCEPTS; APACHE; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COLON BIOPSY; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL ADENOMA; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; ENDOSCOPIST; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTESTINE PREPARATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; TUMOR BIOPSY; VALIDATION STUDY; ADENOMA; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLON; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; RECTUM; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDS;

ADENOMA; AGED; COHORT STUDIES; COLON; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; RECTUM; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84925226602     PISSN: 00029270     EISSN: 15720241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.147     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10-29.
2. Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L et al. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up fi ndings of the Italian randomized controlled trial-SCORE. JNCI 2011; 103: 1-13.
3. Gondal G, Grotmol T, Hofstad B et al. The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) screening study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003; 38: 635-42.
4. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B et al. Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates. JNCI 2005; 97: 347-57.
5. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening fl exible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2345-57.
6. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1095-105.
7. Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1106-14.
8. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-803.
9. Boroffe S, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG et al. Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 993-9.
10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule, 2014.
11. Imperiale TF, Imler TD. Gastroenterology and medical informatics: an evolving collaboration for quality improvement. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 79-80.
12. Mehrotra A, Dellon ES, Schoen RE, et al. Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1233-9.e14.
13. Imler TD, Morea J, Kahi C et al. Natural language processing accurately categorizes fi ndings from colonoscopy and pathology reports. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 689-94.
14. Harkema H, Chapman WW, Saul M et al. Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2011; 18 (Suppl 1): i150-6.
15. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8.
16. Lakoff J, Paszat LF, Saskin R et al. Risk of developing proximal versus distal colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1117-21.
17. 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: 1128-37.
18. Singh H, Nugent Z, Mahmud SM et al. Predictors of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 663-73; quiz 674.
19. Lasisi F, Rex DK. Improving protection against proximal colon cancer by colonoscopy. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 5: 745-54.
20. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22-30.
21. Leufkens AM, van Oijen MGH, Vleggaar FP et al. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 470-5.
22. Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 284-90.
23. Greenspan M, Rajan KB, Baig A et al. Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1286-92.
24. Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1197-203.
25. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-92.
26. 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: 620-5.
27. 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: 493-7.
28. 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: 576-82.
29. 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: 71-8.
30. Imler TD, Morea J, Imperiale TF. Clinical decision support with natural language processing facilitates determination of colonoscopy surveillance intervals. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol; advance online publication, 4 December 2013 (e-pub ahead of print).