Endoscopy 2019; 51(04): S101
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681467
ESGE Days 2019 oral presentations
Saturday, April 6, 2019 11:00 – 13:00: Colonic polyps: detection Club D
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

CAN WE USE POLYP DETECTION RATE (PDR) ALONE TO DESCRIBE ADEQUATE INSPECTION OF BOWEL MUCOSA?

G Vojtěchová
1   First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and Military University Hospital Prague, Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
,
O Ngo
2   Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Brno, Czech Republic
,
B Buckova
2   Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Brno, Czech Republic
,
T Grega
1   First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and Military University Hospital Prague, Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
,
M Voska
1   First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and Military University Hospital Prague, Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
,
O Majek
2   Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Brno, Czech Republic
,
M Zavoral
1   First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and Military University Hospital Prague, Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
,
S Suchanek
1   First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and Military University Hospital Prague, Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 March 2019 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims:

The aim of our study was to assess whether polyp detection rate (PDR) correlates with adenoma detection rate (ADR) and with mean adenoma per colonoscopy (APC). Our effort was to determine minimal marginal value for APC.

Methods:

Prospective multicenter study included asymptomatic individuals aged 45 – 75 who underwent preventive colonoscopy in 2012 – 2016 as part of Czech study monitoring metabolic risk factors of colorectal cancer. Individuals with incomplete colonoscopy and endoscopists with less than 30 colonoscopies and/or no detected adenoma in the observed group were excluded from the study. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relation between individual PDR/ADR and PDR/APC resp. The resulting conversion factors to predict ADR (APC) from PDR were obtained by linear regression.

Results:

In total, the study included 1,614 preventive colonoscopies performed by 16 endoscopists. Correlation between PDR and both indicators in all preventive colonoscopies was strong and statistically significant (PDR/ADR: Rs 0.82; p < 0.001; PDR/APC: Rs 0.70; p = 0.0027). We used the same methodology to determine gender-specific and indication-specific PDR/ADR and PDR/APC correlations. In all cases, we demonstrated a strong and statistically significant correlation between PDR and ADR (APC resp). We obtained conversion factors for both quality indicators: PDR to ADR 0.7185, resp. PDR to APC 0.0123.

Conclusions:

There is a strong correlation between PDR/ADR as well as between PDR/APC. Because of better availability, PDR may replace ADR and APC in colonoscopy quality assessment. Using our conversion factor we obtained minimal marginal value of APC 0.5 based on 40% minimal marginal value of PDR as recommended by ESGE.

PDR has the potential to increase compliance of endoscopists to quality control, at least until data processing is fully automated.

Supported by grants MO1012, Progres Q28/LF1 and 17 – 31909A.