Defining Benchmarks for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenomas Per Colonoscopy in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Due to a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test. (December 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Defining Benchmarks for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenomas Per Colonoscopy in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Due to a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test. (December 2016)
- Main Title:
- Defining Benchmarks for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenomas Per Colonoscopy in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Due to a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test
- Authors:
- Hilsden, Robert J
Bridges, Ronald
Dube, Catherine
McGregor, Elizabeth S
Naugler, Christopher
Rose, Sarah M
Rostom, Alaa
Heitman, Steven J - Abstract:
- Abstract : Objectives: Although there is an accepted benchmark for adenoma detection rate (ADR) in average risk screening colonoscopy, a benchmark for ADR or the associated quality indicator, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), for colonoscopies performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to propose methods for establishing a benchmark ADR and APC for FIT+ patients. Methods: In this historical cohort study, we included 15, 329 patients aged 50–74 years who underwent a colonoscopy at Alberta Health Services' Colon Cancer Screening Centre, Calgary, Canada, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 for either investigation of a positive FIT or average risk screening. Using meta‐regression, we estimated for FIT+ patients the ADR and APC that corresponded to (Method #1: minimally acceptable) an ADR of 25% in average risk individuals, (Method #2: standard of care) the average ADR or APC in all FIT+ patients, and (Method #3: aspirational) the average FIT+ ADR or APC in colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with an ADR of ≥35% in average risk patients. Results: At least one adenoma was detected in 30% of average risk patients and 58% of FIT+ patients. The calculated benchmark FIT+ ADRs for the three methods were 55, 60, and 65%, respectively. The calculated benchmarks for FIT+ APC were 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7, respectively. To account for expected random variation in individual endoscopists' ADR or APC, we propose using theAbstract : Objectives: Although there is an accepted benchmark for adenoma detection rate (ADR) in average risk screening colonoscopy, a benchmark for ADR or the associated quality indicator, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), for colonoscopies performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to propose methods for establishing a benchmark ADR and APC for FIT+ patients. Methods: In this historical cohort study, we included 15, 329 patients aged 50–74 years who underwent a colonoscopy at Alberta Health Services' Colon Cancer Screening Centre, Calgary, Canada, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 for either investigation of a positive FIT or average risk screening. Using meta‐regression, we estimated for FIT+ patients the ADR and APC that corresponded to (Method #1: minimally acceptable) an ADR of 25% in average risk individuals, (Method #2: standard of care) the average ADR or APC in all FIT+ patients, and (Method #3: aspirational) the average FIT+ ADR or APC in colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with an ADR of ≥35% in average risk patients. Results: At least one adenoma was detected in 30% of average risk patients and 58% of FIT+ patients. The calculated benchmark FIT+ ADRs for the three methods were 55, 60, and 65%, respectively. The calculated benchmarks for FIT+ APC were 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7, respectively. To account for expected random variation in individual endoscopists' ADR or APC, we propose using the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of an endoscopist's ADR or APC to determine if they fall below a given benchmark. Conclusions: We have proposed methods of defining benchmarks for ADR and APC in FIT+ patients that go beyond the current "minimally acceptable" threshold currently recommended in average risk patients. These new thresholds represent results obtained by all peers and by a group of expert adenoma detectors defined in an independent patient cohort (average risk). Because the true adenoma burden in FIT+ patients could vary based on factors such as the threshold used to define a positive FIT, screening programs or endoscopy units may need to calculate their own benchmarks using local data. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- American journal of gastroenterology. Volume 111:Number 12(2016)
- Journal:
- American journal of gastroenterology
- Issue:
- Volume 111:Number 12(2016)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 111, Issue 12 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 111
- Issue:
- 12
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0111-0012-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2016-12
- Subjects:
- Stomach -- Diseases -- Periodicals
Intestines -- Diseases -- Periodicals
Gastroenterology -- Periodicals
Gastrointestinal Diseases -- Periodicals
Electronic journals
Periodicals
616.33 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.mdconsult.com/public/search?search_type=journal&j_sort=pub_date&j_date_range=1995-current&j_issn=0002-9270 ↗
http://www.amjgastro.com/ ↗
http://www.nature.com/ajg/archive/index.html ↗
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00029270 ↗
http://www.nature.com/ ↗
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117955841/home ↗
http://firstsearch.oclc.org ↗
http://firstsearch.oclc.org/journal=0002-9270;screen=info;ECOIP ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1038/ajg.2016.449 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0002-9270
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 0824.650000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 15905.xml