Endoscopy 2015; 47(03): 245-250
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391330
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Determining the adenoma detection rate and adenomas per colonoscopy by photography alone: proof-of-concept study

Douglas K. Rex
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Kyle Hardacker
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Margaret MacPhail
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Farrah Rahmani
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Krishna C. Vemulapalli
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Charles J. Kahi
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 30 May 2014

accepted after revision 19 November 2014

Publication Date:
15 January 2015 (online)

Background and study aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC) are measures of the quality of mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. In a resect and discard policy, pathologic assessment for calculation of ADR and APC would not be available. The aim of this study was to determine whether ADR and APC calculation based on photography alone is adequate compared with the pathology-based gold standard.

Patients and methods: A prospective, observational, proof-of-concept study was performed in an academic endoscopy unit. High definition photographs of consecutive polyps were taken, and pathology was estimated by the colonoscopist. Among 121 consecutive patients aged ≥ 50 years who underwent colonoscopy, 268 polyps were removed from 97 patients. Photographs of consecutive polyps were reviewed by a second endoscopist.

Results: The resect and discard policy applied to lesions that were ≤ 5 mm in size. When only photographs of lesions that were ultimately proven to be adenomas were included, the reviewer assessed ADR and APC to be lower than that determined by pathology (absolute reductions of 6.6 % and 0.17, and relative reductions of 12.6 % and 13.1 % in ADR and APC, respectively). When all photographs were included for calculation of ADR and APC, the reviewer determined the ADR to be 3.3 % lower (absolute reduction) and the APC to be the same as the rates determined by pathology.

Conclusions: In a simulated resect and discard strategy, a high-level detector can document adequate ADR and APC by photography alone.

 
  • References

  • 1 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: 1296-308
  • 2 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 16-28
  • 3 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
  • 4 Corley D, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
  • 5 Rex DK, Hewett DG, Snover DC. Detection targets for colonoscopy: from variable detection to validation. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2665-2669
  • 6 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: 71-78
  • 7 Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 925-931
  • 8 Rex DK. Update on colonoscopic imaging and projections for the future. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 318-321
  • 9 Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 419-422
  • 10 Kaminski MF, Hassan C, Bisschops R et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 435-449
  • 11 Rex DK. Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1174-1181
  • 12 Ignjatovic A, East J, Suzuki N et al. Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 1171-1178
  • 13 Kessler WR, Klein RW, Wielage RC et al. Cost savings of removing diminutive polyps without histologic assessment. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: AB105
  • 14 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 865-869
  • 15 Rex DK, Helbig CC. High yields of small and flat adenomas with high-definition colonoscopes using either white light or narrow band imaging. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 42-47
  • 16 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: 42-46
  • 17 Hewett DG, Huffman ME, Rex DK. Leaving distal colorectal hyperplastic polyps in place can be achieved with high accuracy by using narrow-band imaging: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 374-380
  • 18 Hewett DG, Kaltenbach T, Sano Y et al. Validation of a simple classification system for endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal polyps using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 599-607
  • 19 Raghavendra M, Hewett DG, Rex DK. Differentiating adenomas from hyperplastic colorectal polyps: narrow-band imaging can be learned in 20 minutes. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 572-576
  • 20 Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376-380
  • 21 Kahi CJ, Vemulapalli KC, Johnson CS et al. Improving measurement of the adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy quality metric: the Indiana University experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 448-454
  • 22 Lasisi F, Mouchli A, Riddell R et al. Agreement in interpreting villous elements and dysplasia in adenomas less than one centimetre in size. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 1049-1055
  • 23 Abdeljawad K, Vemulapalli KC, Kahi CJ et al. Sessile serrated polyp prevalence determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate and an experienced pathologist. Gastrointest Endosc In press 2014; DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.04.064.
  • 24 Kahi CJ, Anderson JC, Waxman I et al. High-definition chromocolonoscopy vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1301-1307
  • 25 McGill SK, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP et al. Narrow band imaging to differentiate neoplastic and non-neoplastic colorectal polyps in real time: a meta-analysis of diagnostic operating characteristics. Gut 2013; 62: 1704-1713
  • 26 Wanders LK, East JE, Uitentuis SE et al. Diagnostic performance of narrowed spectrum endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging, and confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 1337-1347