Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastroenterology Research Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-28 DOI:10.14740/gr1599
Julio Zuniga Cisneros, Carlos Tunon, Enrique Adames, Carolina Garcia, Rene Rivera, Eyleen Gonzalez, Jan Cubilla, Luis Lambrano
{"title":"Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.","authors":"Julio Zuniga Cisneros,&nbsp;Carlos Tunon,&nbsp;Enrique Adames,&nbsp;Carolina Garcia,&nbsp;Rene Rivera,&nbsp;Eyleen Gonzalez,&nbsp;Jan Cubilla,&nbsp;Luis Lambrano","doi":"10.14740/gr1599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":12461,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4c/70/gr-16-096.PMC10181342.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps.

Results: A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007).

Conclusion: In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据适应症的不同,腺瘤的检出率有差异吗?巴拿马癌症大肠癌筛查项目的经验。
背景:结直肠癌癌症筛查在降低癌症风险和相关死亡方面的益处尚不清楚。影响结肠镜检查成功率的因素有很多,也有很多。我们研究的主要目的是根据结肠镜检查指征确定息肉检出率(PDR)和腺瘤检出率(ADR)是否存在差异,以及哪些因素可能相关。方法:我们对2018年1月至2019年1月在三级内镜中心进行的所有结肠镜检查进行了回顾性审查。所有年龄≥50岁的计划进行非紧急结肠镜检查和筛查结肠镜检查的患者都包括在内。我们根据适应症将结肠镜检查总数分为两类:筛查与非筛查,然后计算PDR、ADR和锯齿状息肉检出率(SDR)。我们还进行了逻辑回归模型,以确定与检测息肉和腺瘤性息肉相关的因素。结果:非筛查组和筛查组分别进行了1129次和365次结肠镜检查。与筛查组相比,非筛查组的PDR和ADR较低(33%对25%;P=0.005和17%对13%;P=0.005)。与筛查组(11%对9%;P=0.053和22%对13%;P=0.007)相比,非筛选组的SDR无显著降低。结论:总之,这项观察性研究报告了PDR和ADR的差异,这取决于筛查和非筛查适应症。这些差异可能与内镜医生、结肠镜检查时间段、人群背景和外部因素有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gastroenterology Research
Gastroenterology Research GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Adult-Onset Autoimmune Enteropathy Mimicking Disaccharidase Deficiency. Effect of Pemafibrate on the Lipid Profile, Liver Function, and Liver Fibrosis Among Patients With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. Extraction Basket Entangled in Surgical Sutures in Common Bile Duct Forty-Five Years After Hepatobiliary Surgery: A Bizarre Adverse Event of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Pre-Cut Papillotomy Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Rendezvous for Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Efficacy of Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization Combined With Percutaneous Microwave Coagulation Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1