Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR. METHODS: In March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period. RESULTS: 2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77-1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Monthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.

A New Scoring System to Predict the Risk for High-risk Adenoma and Comparison of Existing Risk Calculators.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines likely over-generalizes CRC risk, 35% of Americans are not up to date with screening, and there is growing incidence of CRC in younger patients. GOALS: We developed a practical prediction model for high-risk colon adenomas in an average-risk population, including an expanded definition of high-risk polyps (≥3 nonadvanced adenomas), exposing higher than average-risk patients. We also compared results with previously created calculators. STUDY: Patients aged 40 to 59 years, undergoing first-time average-risk screening or diagnostic colonoscopies were evaluated. Risk calculators for advanced adenomas and high-risk adenomas were created based on age, body mass index, sex, race, and smoking history. Previously established calculators with similar risk factors were selected for comparison of concordance statistic (c-statistic) and external validation. RESULTS: A total of 5063 patients were included. Advanced adenomas, and high-risk adenomas were seen in 5.7% and 7.4% of the patient population, respectively. The c-statistic for our calculator was 0.639 for the prediction of advanced adenomas, and 0.650 for high-risk adenomas. When applied to our population, all previous models had lower c-statistic results although one performed similarly. CONCLUSIONS: Our model compares favorably to previously established prediction models. Age and body mass index were used as continuous variables, likely improving the c-statistic. It also reports absolute predictive probabilities of advanced and high-risk polyps, allowing for more individualized risk assessment of CRC.