eISSN: 1896-9151
ISSN: 1734-1922
Archives of Medical Science
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Special issues Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
2/2019
vol. 15
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Clinical research

How to improve the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening? Clinical factors and technological advancements

Maciej Matyja, Artur Pasternak, Mirosław Szura, Michał Wysocki, Michał Pędziwiatr, Kazimierz Rembiasz

Arch Med Sci 2019; 15, 2: 424–433
Online publish date: 2018/04/06
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
Colonoscopy has been widely regarded as the gold standard in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Within recent years different endoscopic imaging techniques have been introduced to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important quality indicator for colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of CRC screening expressed by ADR in two different eras of endoscopic technology advancement.

Material and methods
We conducted a dual-center study that enrolled 24 055 patients, who underwent colonoscopy as part of a national screening program. Patients were sorted into two groups according to the advancement of endoscopic equipment used for colonoscopic examination: group I – 10 405 patients examined between 2004 and 2008 (standard electronic endoscopes); group II – 13 650 patients examined between 2009 and 2014 (modern endoscopes). The ADR in two different eras and the impact of endoscopic novelties were determined.

Results
The ADR in group I was 29.14%, in group II 31.73% (p < 0.001). The overall ADR was 30.88% – 38.80% and 25.95% (p < 0.001) for the male and female patients, respectively. The mean adenoma number per colonoscopy was 0.366 (95% CI: 0.357–0.375; p < 0.001), 0.337 (0.321–0.352) and 0.380 (0.369–0.392) for patients in group I and group II, respectively.

Conclusions
Our study shows that technological innovation, novel endoscopy devices and diagnostic techniques improve the quality in CRC screening by increasing the ADR. However, we need to determine which of the technologies are supreme to achieve excellence in colorectal cancer screening.

keywords:

cancer, adenoma, screening, technology, quality, colorectal, endoscopy, detection, rate, adenoma detection rate

references:
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram II, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2014; 136: E359-86.
Zhang K, Chen Y, Huang X, et al. Expression and clinical significance of cytochrome c oxidase subunit IV in colorectal cancer patients. Arch Med Sci 2016; 12: 68-77.
Çetin D, Yildirim M, Yakan S, Çiyiltepe H, Aydoğan S. Effects of prognostic factors on overall and disease-free survival in patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer. Arch Med Sci Civil Dis 2016; 1: 131-8.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-95.
Zhang T, Cui G, Yao Y, et al. Value of CNRIP1 promoter methylation in colorectal cancer screening and prognosis assessment and its influence on the activity of cancer cells. Arch Med Sci 2017; 13: 1281-94.
Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Hopkins RH Jr, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 378-86.
Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-50.
Kaminski MF, Regula JR, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-803.
Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25: 373-84.
Aoun E, Baki HA, Azar C, et al. A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 213-8.
Waye JD. Completing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2681-2.
Witte TN, Enns R. The difficult colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2007; 21: 487-90.
Gonçalves AR, Ferreira C, Marques A, et al. Assessment of quality in screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2011; 4: 277-81.
Diamond SJ, Enestvedt BK, Jiang Z, et al. Adenoma detection rate increases with each decade of life after 50 years of age. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 135-40.
Hetzel JT, Huang CS, Coukos JA, et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2656e64.
Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, Eckert GJ, Rex DK. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 42-6.
Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219-26.
Wallace MB, Crook JE, Thomas CS, Staggs E, Parker L, Rex DK. Effect of an endoscopic quality improvement program on adenoma detection rates: a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial in a clinical practice setting (EQUIP-3). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 538-45.
Lakoff J, Paszat LF, Saskin R, et al. Risk of developing proximal versus distal col-orectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1117-21.
Pabby A, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, et al. Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary polyp prevention trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 385-91.
Eloubeidi MA, Wallace MB, Desmond R, Farraye FA. Female gender and other factors predictive of a limited screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination for colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1634-9.
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.
Barclay RI, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-41.
Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 952-7.
Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ, Ragunath K. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 499-505.
Inoue T, Murano M, Murano N, et al. Comparative study of conventional colonoscopy and pan-colonic narrow-band imaging system in the detection of neoplastic colonic polyps: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gastroenterol 2008; 43: 45-50.
Adler A, Pohl H, Papanikolaou IS, et al. A prospective randomised study on narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection: does narrow-band imaging induce a learning effect? Gut 2008; 57: 59-64.
Saito Y, Kimura H. Responsive insertion technology. Dig Endosc 2011; 23 (Suppl 1): 164-7.
Pasternak A, Szura M, Solecki R, et al. Impact of responsive insertion technology (RIT) on reducing discomfort during colonoscopy: randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2247-54.
Leung FW. Magnetic endoscope imaging colonoscope: a new modality for hypothesis testing in unsedated colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1037-9.
Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al. Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 885-9.
Holme Ö, Höie O, Matre J, et al. Magnetic endoscopic imaging versus standard colonoscopy in a routine colonoscopy setting: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1215-22.
Rex DK. Polyp detection at colonoscopy: endoscopist and technical factors. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2017; 31: 425-33.
Ishaq S, Siau K, Harrison E, et al. Technological advances for improving adenoma detection rates: the changing face of colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 721-7.
FEATURED PRODUCTS
Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe