Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(12): E1732-E1740
DOI: 10.1055/a-1244-1859
Original article

Trainee participation during screening colonoscopy does not affect ADR at subsequent surveillance, but may result in early follow-up

Alexander J. Eckardt
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, DKD Helios Klinik Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany
,
Joan Kheder
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
Anjali Basil
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
Taryn Silverstein
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
Krunal Patel
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
Mohamed Mahmoud
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
Yasir Al-Azzawi
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
Daniel Ellis
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
William Gillespie
,
Yoel Carrasquillo Vega
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
Sharina D. Person
3   Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
,
John M. Levey
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Training future endoscopists is essential to meet rising demands for screening and surveillance colonoscopies. Studies have shown conflicting results regarding the influence of trainees on adenoma detection rates (ADR). It is unclear whether trainee participation during screening adversely affects ADR at subsequent surveillance and whether it alters surveillance recommendations.

Patients and methods A retrospective analysis of average-risk screening colonoscopies and surveillance exams over a subsequent 10-year period was performed. The initial inclusion criteria were met by 5208 screening and 2285 surveillance exams. Patients with poor preparation were excluded. The final analysis included 7106 procedures, including 4922 screening colonoscopies and 2184 surveillance exams. Data were collected from pathology and endoscopy electronic databases. The primary outcome was the ADR with and without trainee participation. Surveillance recommendations were analyzed as a secondary outcome.

Results Trainees participated in 1131 (23 %) screening and in 232 (11 %) surveillance exams. ADR did not significantly differ (P = 0.19) for screening exams with trainee participation (19.5 %) or those without (21.4 %). ADRs were higher at surveillance exams with (22.4 %) and without (27.5 %) trainee participation. ADR at surveillance was not adversely affected by trainee participation during the previous colonoscopy. Shorter surveillance intervals were given more frequently if trainees participated during the initial screening procedure (P = 0.0001).

Conclusions ADR did not significantly differ in screening or surveillance colonoscopies with or without trainee participation. ADR at surveillance was not adversely affected by trainee participation during the previous screening exam. However, trainee participation may result in shorter surveillance recommendations.



Publication History

Received: 25 March 2020

Accepted: 30 July 2020

Article published online:
17 November 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Ward E, Sherman RL, Henley SJ. et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1999-2015, Featuring Cancer in Men and Women ages 20-49. Natl Cancer Inst 2019; 111: 1279-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Levin TR, Corley DA, Jensen CD. et al. Effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence and mortality in a large community-based population. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 1383-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Joseph DA, Meester RG, Zauber AG. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity. Cancer 2016; 122: 2479-2486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Oh YS, Collins CL, Virani S. et al. Lack of impact on polyp detection by fellow involvement during colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 3413-3421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Eckardt AJ, Swales C, Bhattacharya K. et al. Does trainee participation during colonoscopy affect adenoma detection rates?. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1337-1344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rogart JN, Siddiqui UD, Jamidar PA. et al. Fellow involvement may increase adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2841-2846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG. et al. Trainee participation is associated with increased small adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1223-1231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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: 166-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Friedman M, Arora G, Green J. Fellow involvement during colonoscopy does not reduce adenoma detection rate. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nishizawa T, Suzuki H, Takahashi M. et al. Trainee participation during colonoscopy adversely affects polyp and adenoma detection rates. Digestion 2011; 84: 245-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Peters SL, Hasan AG, Jacobson NB. et al. Level of fellowship training increases adenoma detection rates. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 439-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gianotti RJ, Oza SS, Tapper EB. et al. A longitudinal study of adenoma detection rate in gastroenterology fellowship training. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 2831-2837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Qayed E, Shea L, Goebel S. et al. Association of trainee participation with adenoma and polyp detection rates. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 9: 204-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mangas-Sanjuan C, Santana E. et al. Variation in colonoscopy performance measures according to procedure indication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 18: 1216-1223.e2 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.035.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Goodrich M. et al. Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the new hampshire colonoscopy registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 1308-1312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mangas-Sanjuan C, Zapater P. et al. Importance of endoscopist quality metrics for findings at surveillance colonoscopy: The detection-surveillance paradox. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 622-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ. et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 1933-1943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 van Kooten H, de Jonge V, Schreuders E. et al. Awareness of postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: a nationwide survey of colonoscopists in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 2: 79-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Johnson MR, Grubber J, Grambow SC. et al. Physician non-adherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in the veterans affairs healthcare system. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 938-951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shah TU, Voils CI, McNeil R. et al. Understanding gastroenterologist adherence to polyp surveillance guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1283-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Saini SD, Nayak RS, Kuhn L. et al. Why don't gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines? Results of a national survey. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 43: 554-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Schreuders E, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V. et al. The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kim ER, Sinn DH, Kim JY. et al. Factors associated with adherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1690-1695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Menees SB, Kim HM, Elliott EE. et al. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 510-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1714-1723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 von Renteln D, Robertson DJ, Bensen S. et al. Prolonged cecal insertion time is associated with decreased adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 574-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar