Estimation of the Adenoma Detection Rate From the Polyp Detection Rate by Using a Conversion Factor in a Predominantly Hispanic Population. Issue 7 (August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Elhanafi, Sherif; Ortiz, Arleen M.; Yarlagadda, Anita; Tsai, Cindy; Eloliby, Mohamed; Mallawaarachchi, Indika; Dwivedi, Alok; Zuckerman, Marc J.; Othman, Mohamed O.
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical gastroenterology. Volume 49:Issue 7(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-08
• Subjects: polyp detection rate -- adenoma detection rate -- screening colonoscopy; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases; Gastroenterology; Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.33005
• DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000179
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0192-0790

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Calculating the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a complex process in contrast to the polyp detection rate (PDR) that can be easily calculated. The average adenoma to polyp detection rate quotient (APDRQ) was proposed as a conversion factor to estimate the ADR for individual endoscopists from the endoscopist's PDR. However, this conversion factor was not validated in different practice settings. Goal: To validate the use of the proposed conversion factor in a practice setting with a predominantly Hispanic population. Study: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study (December 2007 to November 2012) of screening colonoscopies at a university practice setting with an 86.9% Hispanic population. The actual ADR and PDR were calculated for all endoscopists. The weighted average of ADR to PDR ratio for each endoscopist was used to obtain APDRQ. The APDRQ was used as a conversion multiplier to estimate each endoscopist's ADR using the single endoscopist's PDR. Results: A total of 2148 screening colonoscopies were included. The average PDR for the whole group was 36.9% (range, 11% to 49%). The actual ADR was estimated as 25.5% (range, 11% to 37%). The average APDRQ for our group was 0.68. The estimated ADR was 25.48% (range, 8% to 33%). There was a high correlation between actual ADR and the estimated ADR (Pearson correlation=0.92). Conclusions: In a practice setting with a predominantly Hispanic population, a conversion factor can be used to estimate ADR from PDR providing a high degree of correlation with the actual ADR.