7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Should We Measure Adenoma Detection Rate for Gastroenterology Fellows in Training?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a proven quality metric for colonoscopy. The value of ADR for the evaluation of gastroenterology fellows is not well established. The aim of this study is to calculate and evaluate the utility of ADR as a measure of competency for gastroenterology fellows.

          Methods

          Colonoscopies for the purposes of screening and surveillance, on which gastroenterology fellows participated at the Richard L. Roudebush VAMC (one of the primary training sites at Indiana University), during a 9-month period, were included. ADR, cecal intubation rate, and indirect withdrawal time were measured. These metrics were compared between the levels of training.

          Results

          A total of 591 screening and surveillance colonoscopies were performed by 14 fellows. This included six, four and four fellows, in the first, second and third year of clinical training, respectively. Fellows were on rotation at the VAMC for a mean of 1.9 months (range 1 to 3 months) during the study period. The average ADR was 68.8% (95% CI 65.37 - 72.24). The average withdrawal time was 27.59 min (95% CI 23.45 - 31.73). The average cecal intubation rate was 99% (95% CI 98-100%). There was no significant difference between ADRs, cecal intubation rates, and withdrawal times at different levels of training; however, a trend toward swifter withdrawal times with advancing training was noted.

          Conclusions

          ADR appears not to be a useful measure of competency for gastroenterology fellows. Consideration should be given to alternative metrics that could avoid bias and confounders.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

          Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy. 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

              Colonoscopy is used widely for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; however, its long-term impact on the incidence and mortality of CRC is not known. We assessed CRC incidence and mortality in a group of asymptomatic average-risk patients who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1989 and 1993 at a university hospital. By using standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios, we compared our observed CRC rates with expected rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. The cohort comprised 715 patients (mean age, 61 +/- 6.5 y; 59% male; 95% Caucasian) with 10,492 patient-years of follow-up. There were 12 cases of CRC: 5 found at baseline and 7 found after a median follow-up period of 8 years (range, 3-16 y). When the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded, there were 7 incident cases of CRC (95% confidence interval [CI], 2-13) over 9075 person-years of follow-up. The expected number based on SEER data was 21. The incidence rate was 0.77 cases per 1000 person-years, and the standardized incidence ratio was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.10-0.62), consistent with a relative risk reduction in CRC incidence of 67%. Three patients died from CRC (95% CI, 0-9). The expected number of deaths based on SEER data was 9. The mortality rate was 0.29 per 1000 person-years, and the standardized mortality ratio was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.0-1.06), consistent with a relative reduction in CRC death of 65%. In this average-risk cohort, CRC incidence and mortality were reduced after screening colonoscopy. These results provide additional evidence for the effectiveness of colonoscopy as a primary CRC screening modality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gastroenterology Res
                Gastroenterology Res
                Elmer Press
                Gastroenterology Research
                Elmer Press
                1918-2805
                1918-2813
                August 2018
                8 February 2018
                : 11
                : 4
                : 290-294
                Affiliations
                [a ]Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
                [b ]Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA
                Author notes
                [c ]Corresponding Author: Nabil F. Fayad, 702 Rotary Circle, Suite 225, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Email: nfayad@ 123456iu.edu
                Article
                10.14740/gr1043w
                6089585
                cc309b9d-9d36-4925-b423-91edbb84b20e
                Copyright 2018, El-Halabi et al.

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 9 May 2018
                : 29 May 2018
                Categories
                Original Article

                adenoma detection rate,colonoscopy training,gastroenterology fellowship,colonoscopy competency assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article