4.5 Article

The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy: A population-based cohort study

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 176-181

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.08.129

Keywords

Adenoma; Colonoscopy; Colorectal neoplasms; Diagnosis; Mass screening; Occult blood; Quality improvement; Standards

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Measuring adenoma detection is a priority in the quality improvement process for colonoscopy. Our aim was (1) to determine the most appropriate quality indicators to assess the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy and (2) to establish benchmark rates for the French colorectal cancer screening programme. Methods: Retrospective study of all colonoscopies performed in average-risk asymptomatic people aged 50-74 years after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test in eight administrative areas of the French population-based programme. Results: We analysed 42,817 colonoscopies performed by 316 gastroenterologists. Endoscopists who had an adenoma detection rate around the benchmark of 35% had a mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy varying between 0.36 and 0.98. 13.9% of endoscopists had a mean number of adenomas above the benchmark of 0.6 and an adenoma detection rate below the benchmark of 35%, or inversely. Correlation was excellent between mean numbers of adenomas and polyps per colonoscopy (Pearson coefficient r = 0.90, p < 0.0001), better than correlation between mean number of adenomas and adenoma detection rate (r = 0.84, p = 0.01). Conclusion: The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy. Benchmark could be established at 0.6 in the French programme. (C) 2013 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available