Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Ahead of print > Article
Original Article
Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees
Young Min Songorcid, Kyung Su Hanorcid, Byung Chang Kimorcid, Chang Won Hongorcid, Bun Kimorcid, Min Chul Kimorcid, Myeong Jae Jinorcid, Dae Kyung Sohnorcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2023.00199.0028
Published online: August 28, 2024

Center for Colorectal Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

Correspondence to: Dae Kyung Sohn, MD, PhD Center for Colorectal Cancer, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Korea Email: gsgabal@ncc.re.kr
• Received: March 10, 2023   • Revised: June 9, 2023   • Accepted: July 20, 2023

© 2024 The Korean Society of Coloproctology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 866 Views
  • 19 Download
  • Purpose
    To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training.
  • Methods
    ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined.
  • Results
    The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606).
  • Conclusion
    In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death in Korea [1]. Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the prevention and early detection of CRC; therefore, it is widely used [2, 3]. However, there are some concerns about whether colonoscopy is being performed properly; therefore, many studies on the quality and monitoring of colonoscopy have been conducted [4, 5]. Based on these research results, the need for a colonoscopy training program was raised, and gastrointestinal endoscopy departments in the United States have developed colonoscopy training programs and evaluation tools.
Indicators commonly included in colonoscopy training are cecal intubation time, cecal intubation rate, and adenoma detection rate (ADR) [6]. Among these, ADR is an important indicator in evaluating the colonoscopy quality. A low ADR is associated with the risk of interval CRC, detected on screening colonoscopy. A research result indicated that if ADR is increased by 1%, CRC can be reduced by 3% [7]. Currently, the recommended ADR level by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) is ≥25% (30% in men and 20% in women) in the first colonoscopy for screening purposes.
This study aimed to analyze the quality indicators of colonoscopy, including ADR, to identify the changes and differences among trainees participating in a colonoscopy training program according to the training period.
Ethics statement
All research procedures were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Center (No. NCC2022-0378). The requirement for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study. Personal information protection were specified for the approval.
Study design
This retrospective, single-center study reviewed the colonoscopy result sheets and pathologic reports of 3 colonoscopy trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts at the National Cancer Center (Goyang, Korea) between March and November 2022.
Data collection
The following patient and colonoscopy data were retrospectively collected through the colonoscopy result sheets: date of performing colonoscopy, patients’ age and sex, the total examination time of colonoscopy, history of abdominal surgery, history of colorectal surgery, and the number of resected polyps. The pathologic reports were reviewed to confirm the pathological diagnosis of all resected polyps. Based on these results, several endoscopic parameters were calculated. The definitions of the analyzed indicators are summarized in Table 1.
Participants
The 3 trainees who participated in this study were in fellowship training, majoring in the Division of Colorectal Surgery. They started receiving colonoscopy training at the Colonoscopy Academy of the National Cancer Center (CAN), which is a 1-year colonoscopy training program operated by the National Cancer Center [8]. These 3 trainees had <20 colonoscopy experiences during their residency training. Between March and May 2022, they performed insertion and withdrawal of colonoscopy under the guidance of experts. From June 2022, they began performing colonoscopies independently, occasionally seeking assistance from experts.
In addition, the colonoscopy results of 5 colonoscopy experts were also analyzed to evaluate the adequacy of the colonoscopy results of the 3 trainees. Among the 5 experts, 3 were colorectal surgeons, whereas 2 were gastroenterologists. They all had >10 years of experience in full-time colonoscopy.
Outcome measurement
The primary outcome of this study was ADR. The secondary outcomes were ADR for men, ADR for women, polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), and adenoma per polypectomy (APP).
Because the 3 trainees started performing colonoscopies independently in June 2022, the results from June 2022 were regarded as their own values. Therefore, colonoscopy results for 6 months, from June to November 2022, were analyzed. The quality indicators of the 3 trainees were compared with the results of the 5 experts during the same period. Furthermore, to determine whether the quality indicators of the 3 trainees improved during the training period, the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed: the first 2 months (June and July), the second 2 months (August and September), and the third 2 months (October and November). The number of colonoscopies performed by the 3 trainees every 2 months is presented in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.
To increase the reliability of ADR and related indicators, we also performed a subgroup analysis for the screening/surveillance group only. Due to a considerable number of patients referred for polypectomy from other institution, the ADRs for the staffs in entire patients are inevitably higher than those for the trainees. The screening/surveillance group was defined as those aged >50 years, had a colonoscopy interval of ≥3 years, and had only undergone colonoscopy for screening or surveillance purposes. The quality indicators of the 3 trainees and 5 experts for the screening/surveillance group were compared, and the changes were confirmed by dividing the indicators of the 3 trainees into 3 sections, as performed for all patients.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative data were reported as median with interquartile range (IQR). Continuous variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Qualitative data were reported as number (percentage) and were compared using the chi-squared test and Fisher exact test. All tests were 2-sided, and statistical significance was set at P<0.05. All statistical analyzes were performed using R ver. 4.2.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).
Between March and November 2022, 8,075 colonoscopies were performed at the National Cancer Center (Fig. 1). Of these, 3,820 colonoscopies were selected and analyzed. Of which, 2,005 cases (52.5%) were observed by the 3 trainees. Table 2 shows the characteristics of patients who underwent colonoscopy and the outcomes of colonoscopy. Among the 3,821 patients, 1,889 (49.4%) were female, and the median age was 60 years. Furthermore, 437 patients (11.4%) had a history of abdominal surgery, whereas 344 patients (9%) had undergone colorectal surgery for CRC. The median procedure time was 13.0 minutes (IQR, 10–17 minutes) for the trainees and 10.2 minutes (IQR, 8–14 minutes) for the experts, showing a significant difference between the 2 groups (P<0.001). Among the calculated quality indicators of colonoscopy, only PDR showed no significant difference between the trainees and the experts (62.9% vs. 64.4%, P=0.348). There were significant differences in ADR (50.6% vs. 57.6%, P<0.001), ADR for men (57.2% vs. 62.8%, P=0.014), ADR for women (43.2% vs. 52.9%, P<0.001), AADR (9.3% vs. 13.5%, P<0.001), APC (1.08 vs. 1.30, P<0.001), and APP (70.9% vs. 77.7%, P<0.001) between the 2 groups.
The analysis results in the screening/surveillance group, defined to increase the reliability of ADR, are presented in Table 3. The procedure time was 13 minutes (IQR, 10.0–17.0 minutes) for trainees and 10 minutes (IQR, 8.0–13.5 minutes) for experts, showing a significant difference between the 2 groups (P<0.001). However, unlike in the analysis of entire patients, all calculated quality indicators, including ADR (51.8% vs. 53.4%, P=0.551), showed no significant differences between the trainees and the experts.
The changes in PDR, ADR, and APP of trainees in the screening/surveillance group were divided by 2 months (Fig. 2). When the training period was divided into 3 sections, the trainee's ADR improved a little to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, there was no significant difference among the 3 sections (P=0.623). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the trainees' PDR among the 3 stages; however, it did gradually increase to 62.3%, 67.7%, and 68.4%, respectively (P=0.290). APP showed a significant increase from 63.8% in the first 2 months to 73.2% in the second 2 months (P=0.004); however, there was no significant difference in APP between the second and third 2 months (73.2% vs. 71.6%, P=0.612).
The changes in ADR of the 3 trainees according to the 2-month training period are presented in Table 4. In an analysis of the screening/surveillance group, overall, there was a significant difference in ADR among the 3 trainees (P=0.008); however, in the third 2 months, there was no significant difference in ADR among the 3 trainees (P=0.606).
This study revealed that the ADR of trainees participating in a colonoscopy training program could be higher than the recommended level, even in the early stages of training. In the present study, 3 trainees learned not only the basic techniques of colonoscopy but also the knowledge and skills of the experts during the colonoscopy training conducted by several colonoscopy experts. Through these training methods, the 3 trainees continuously showed a high ADR level of ≥40 from the beginning of the training. At the beginning, there was a significant variance in ADR among trainees. However, as the training continued, especially in the third section of the training period, the difference in ADR among the trainees decreased and converged to the experts' ADR level. These results suggest that the training education program was working properly.
Colonoscopy is recognized as the most important method for preventing CRC, and ADR is the index of colonoscopy most directly involved in CRC prevention. Therefore, many studies on improving ADR have been conducted [911]. So far, water assistance, elongation of withdrawal time, retroflexion in cecum, second look for proximal colon, and dynamic change in patient position have been suggested as ways to increase ADR [5, 1214]. Improving ADR is an equally important issue for trainees new to colonoscopy. There have been some studies that have focused on ADR in trainees newly learning colonoscopy. Van Doorn et al. [15] compared the ADRs of 7 gastroenterology fellows. They excluded the initial 100 colonoscopies per trainee, and only colonoscopies of patients aged ≥18 years without underlying diseases were analyzed. There was a difference in ADR among the 7 fellows during the training period. Furthermore, only 2 of the 7 fellows had improved ADRs after training. Based on this result, it was argued that ADR should be improved by implementing feedback and benchmarking from the early stage of training. Gianotti et al. [16] analyzed average-risk colonoscopy performed by 10 gastroenterology fellows. They confirmed that 325 and 539 colonoscopy cases for men and women, respectively, were needed to reach the ideal ADR. They also showed that ADR improved through attending supervision. Based on these results, they argued that a large number of colonoscopies under attending supervision is necessary to increase the ADR of trainees. Consistent with previous studies, differences in ADR among trainees were also observed in the present study. As the training continued, the difference decreases, and eventually, the trainee's ADR reaches the expert level, which was somewhat consistent with previous studies.
In the present study, colonoscopies performed by trainees during the first 3 months were excluded. This was because colonoscopy insertion by trainees did not work well during this period; therefore, they focused on increasing the cecal intubation rate. This period was considered the stage of learning the handling skills necessary for withdrawal. Furthermore, as mentioned above, because the colonoscopy procedure was performed only under expert supervision, the ADR during this period was not considered the trainees’ ADR. Also, a screening/surveillance group for patients with a colonoscopy interval of ≥3 years was set up in the present study. This was because the number of screening colonoscopies with an interval of >5 years was only 242 cases between June and November 2022, which was a small number to analyze. Currently, a 3-year colonoscopy interval is recommended for surveillance after polypectomy in Korea [17, 18].
As part of colonoscopy training, the 3 trainees in the present study practiced diagnosing polyps macroscopically by checking the pathologic results of resected polyps. An indicator, APP, was introduced to judge the results of this training. In the screening/surveillance group, the APP of the 3 trainees showed a significant increase (P=0.007), and in the second and third 2 months of training, the results were similar to the experts' APP of 72.5. Therefore, the diagnostic ability of polyps on visual appearance in the endoscopic field of view is considered to be improved relatively quickly by training. Furthermore, APP can be used as one of the indicators of colonoscopy training.
The outcomes of the present study suggest some implementations. First, an ADR of ≥25, the recommended level, can be achievable from the early phase of training. All 3 trainees in this study showed an ADR of ≥40 from the first 2 months. This is thought to be due to the fact that they were tested with a withdrawal time of 9 minutes or more under the supervision of experts. Also, the attending supervision and feedback from the expert staff played a big role. The expert should give the trainee enough time to observe and then observe together. In addition, the expert should regularly monitor the trainee’s ADR and give feedback to the trainee and allow the trainee to learn various cases through seminars. Second, trainee's ADR can be improved through training. Although there was a difference in ADR among trainees in the early phase of training, as the training continued, the trainees' ADR improved overall, even to the expert's ADR level, and the difference in ADR among trainees decreased.
It could be criticized that trainee 1's ADR decreased in the third 2 months, which is the biggest reason for the decrease in the difference in the ADR between trainees. Trainee 1 had already achieved an ADR above the expert's ADR in the first 2 months, but due to the relatively long examination time, it seems that trainee 1 was trying to maintain a high level of ADR while minimizing patient discomfort during the training period (Supplementary Table 3). The decrease in the difference in ADR between the trainees in the third 2 months can be seen as a result of their efforts to achieve good quality colonoscopy in their own way, as it is important to increase the ADR, but also to minimize patient discomfort for a good colonoscopy.
This study had some limitations. First, it is a retrospective study; therefore, it was difficult to accurately check the data, such as the history of abdominal surgery. Second, because the analysis was divided by periods rather than the number of performed colonoscopies, the changes in quality indicators could not be accurately reflected. This method was used, however, because the number of colonoscopy experiences before independently performing colonoscopies differed for each trainee. Third, because the trainees’ ADR in the present study is much higher than that in other existing studies on trainees, there may be questions about this study’s results. However, ADR may differ from country to country and institution to institution. Furthermore, because the experts’ ADR in this study was presented as a reference and the trainees’ ADR was confirmed to have reached the expert level, this study’s results are believed to be reliable. Moreover, there may be criticism that it is inappropriate to perform colonoscopies independently after just 3 months of training. The lack of data on quality indicators other than ADR, such as the cecal intubation rate, is also a limitation. Future research should include these factors.
However, in many studies on colonoscopy training, the trainees have <300 colonoscopy experience; however, the 3 trainees who participated in the present study performed >800 colonoscopies between March and November 2022. Therefore, because each trainee had accumulated a sufficient number of colonoscopy experiences, this study has an advantage in terms of learning curve analysis. In addition, the reliability of ADR was secured by analyzing both entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. This study also shows comparable reference values by presenting quality indicators of the colonoscopy experts together. Finally, by targeting colorectal surgical trainees, this study is distinguished from many existing studies targeting gastroenterology trainees.
In conclusion, the ADR of colonoscopy trainees can be higher than the recommended level, even in the early stages of training; however, there are variances among trainees. During the training period, ADR can be improved, even reaching the experts’ level, and the difference in ADR among trainees decreases. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period. These efforts include things that can be done by expert staffs, such as attending supervision and implementing feedback, and things that can be done by the trainees themselves, such as benchmarking the skills of experts, elongating withdrawal time, and dynamic change in patient position.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (No. NRF-2022R1A2C2009757) and a grant from the National Cancer Center of Korea (No. NCC-2310810).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: DKS; Data curation: YMS, KSH, BCK, CWH, BK, MCK, MJJ; Formal analysis: YMS, MCK, MJJ; Funding acquisition: DKS; Investigation: MCK, MJJ; Methodology: DKS; Writing–original draft: YMS; Writing–review & editing: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Additional information

This study was presented as a poster at the Korean Society of Coloproctology 56th Annual Meeting held in March 2023 in Gyeongju, Korea.

Supplementary Table 1.

Number of colonoscopy experiences of the 3 trainees in entire patients (n=2,638)
ac-2023-00199-0028-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Number of colonoscopy experiences of the 3 trainees in the screening/surveillance group (n=811)
ac-2023-00199-0028-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf

Supplementary Table 3.

Changes in the withdrawal time of the 3 trainees for the screening/surveillance group
ac-2023-00199-0028-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf
Supplementary materials are available from https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2023.00199.0028.
Fig. 1.
The flowchart of included colonoscopy cases.
ac-2023-00199-0028f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Changes in the trainees’ quality indicators in the screening/surveillance group. The experts’ quality indicators were the following: adenoma per polypectomy (APP), 72.5%; polyp detection rate (PDR), 65.0%; and adenoma detection rate (ADR), 53.4%.
ac-2023-00199-0028f2.jpg
Table 1.
Definition of terms
Term (abbreviation) Definition
Polyp detection rate (PDR) Percentage of patients who had at least one polyp resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) Percentage of patients who had at least 1 histologically confirmed adenoma resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
Advanced adenoma One or more of the following findings:
 adenoma ≥10mm in size
 adenoma with tubulovillous or villous histology
 adenoma with high-grade dysplasia
Advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR) Percentage of patients who had at least 1 histologically confirmed advanced adenoma resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) Total number of histologically confirmed adenomas resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
Adenoma per polypectomy (APP) Total number of histologically confirmed adenoma resected divided by the total number of polypectomies

Foot notes

Table 2.
Patients’ characteristics and colonoscopy outcomes in entire patients (n=3,820)
Variable Trainee (n=2,005) Expert (n=1,815) P-value
Female sex 945 (47.1) 944 (52.0) 0.003
Age (yr) 60 (52–68) 60 (52–68) 0.365
History of abdominal surgery 311 (15.5) 126 (6.9) <0.001
History of colorectal surgery 259 (12.9) 85 (4.7) <0.001
Procedure time (min) 13.0 (10–17) 10.2 (8–14) <0.001
Polyp detection rate (%) 62.9 64.4 0.348
ADR (%) 50.6 57.6 <0.001
 Male 57.2 62.8 0.014
 Female 43.2 52.9 <0.001
Advanced ADR (%) 9.3 13.5 <0.001
Adenoma per colonoscopy 1.08 1.30 <0.001
Adenoma per polypectomy (%) 70.9 77.7 <0.001

Values are presented as number (%), median (interquartile range), or number only.

ADR, adenoma detection rate.

Table 3.
Patients’ characteristics and colonoscopy outcomes in the screening/surveillance group (n=1,606)
Variable Trainee (n=726) Expert (n=880) P-value
Female sex 374 (51.5) 481 (54.7) 0.228
Age (yr) 61.5 (57–68) 62.0 (56–69) 0.547
History of abdominal surgery 50 (6.9) 49 (5.6) 0.322
History of colorectal surgery 28 (3.9) 25 (2.8) 0.320
Procedure time (min) 13 (10.0–17.0) 10 (8.0–13.5) <0.001
Polyp detection rate (%) 66.0 65.0 0.721
ADR (%) 51.8 53.4 0.551
 Male 59.9 62.4 0.538
 Female 44.1 45.9 0.643
Advanced ADR (%) 9.8 10.1 0.890
Adenoma per colonoscopy 1.14 1.20 0.499
Adenoma per polypectomy (%) 69.3 72.5 0.074

Values are presented as number (%), median (interquartile range), or number only.

ADR, adenoma detection rate.

Table 4.
Changes in the ADR of the 3 trainees for the screening/surveillance group
Trainee Total ADR (%) ADR (%) according to period
P-value
First 2 mo (June and July) Second 2 mo (August and September) Third 2 mo (October and November)
Trainee 1 58.5 58.6 62.7 53.0 0.409
Trainee 2 44.7 42.6 43.1 49.2 0.679
Trainee 3 50.2 45.3 45.8 57.3 0.228
P-value 0.008 0.063 0.022 0.606 -

ADR, adenoma detection rate.

  • 1. Korea Central Cancer Registry. Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2019. National Cancer Center; 2021.PDF
  • 2. Rex DK. Colonoscopy: the dominant and preferred colorectal cancer screening strategy in the United States. Mayo Clin Proc 2007;82:662–4. ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Smith RA, Brooks D, Andrews KS, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:130–60. ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:219–26. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 5. ASGE Training Committee, Walsh CM, Umar SB, Ghassemi S, Aihara H, Anand GS, et al. Colonoscopy core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:297–304. ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:31–53. ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1298–306. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 8. Oh JR, Han KS, Hong CW, Kim BC, Kim B, Park SC, et al. Colonoscopy learning curves for colorectal surgery fellow trainees: experiences with the 15-year colonoscopy training program. Ann Surg Treat Res 2018;95:169–74. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 9. Rex DK. Detection measures for colonoscopy: considerations on the adenoma detection rate, recommended detection thresholds, withdrawal times, and potential updates to measures. J Clin Gastroenterol 2020;54:130–5. ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Zhao S, Yang X, Wang S, Meng Q, Wang R, Bo L, et al. Impact of 9-minute withdrawal time on the adenoma detection rate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:e168–81. ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Shaukat A, Tuskey A, Rao VL, Dominitz JA, Murad MH, Keswani RN, et al. Interventions to improve adenoma detection rates for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:171–83. ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Sedlack RE, Coyle WJ; ACE Research Group. Assessment of competency in endoscopy: establishing and validating generalizable competency benchmarks for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:516–23. ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Patwardhan VR, Feuerstein JD, Sengupta N, Lewandowski JJ, Tsao R, Kothari D, et al. Fellowship colonoscopy training and preparedness for independent gastroenterology practice. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016;50:45–51. ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Waschke KA, Anderson J, Valori RM, MacIntosh DG, Kolars JC, DiSario JA, et al. ASGE principles of endoscopic training. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:27–34. ArticlePubMed
  • 15. van Doorn SC, Klanderman RB, Hazewinkel Y, Fockens P, Dekker E. Adenoma detection rate varies greatly during colonoscopy training. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:122–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Gianotti RJ, Oza SS, Tapper EB, Kothari D, Sheth SG. A longitudinal study of adenoma detection rate in gastroenterology fellowship training. Dig Dis Sci 2016;61:2831–7. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 17. Sohn DK; Colonoscopy Study Group of the Korean Society of Coloproctology. A survey of colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Coloproctol 2014;30:88–92. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 18. Kim SY, Kwak MS, Yoon SM, Jung Y, Kim JW, Boo SJ, et al. Korean guidelines for postpolypectomy colonoscopic surveillance: 2022 revised edition. Korean J Gastroenterol 2022;80:115–34. ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite this Article
        Cite this Article
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees
      Image Image
      Fig. 1. The flowchart of included colonoscopy cases.
      Fig. 2. Changes in the trainees’ quality indicators in the screening/surveillance group. The experts’ quality indicators were the following: adenoma per polypectomy (APP), 72.5%; polyp detection rate (PDR), 65.0%; and adenoma detection rate (ADR), 53.4%.
      Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees
      Term (abbreviation) Definition
      Polyp detection rate (PDR) Percentage of patients who had at least one polyp resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
      Adenoma detection rate (ADR) Percentage of patients who had at least 1 histologically confirmed adenoma resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
      Advanced adenoma One or more of the following findings:
       adenoma ≥10mm in size
       adenoma with tubulovillous or villous histology
       adenoma with high-grade dysplasia
      Advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR) Percentage of patients who had at least 1 histologically confirmed advanced adenoma resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
      Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) Total number of histologically confirmed adenomas resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies
      Adenoma per polypectomy (APP) Total number of histologically confirmed adenoma resected divided by the total number of polypectomies
      Variable Trainee (n=2,005) Expert (n=1,815) P-value
      Female sex 945 (47.1) 944 (52.0) 0.003
      Age (yr) 60 (52–68) 60 (52–68) 0.365
      History of abdominal surgery 311 (15.5) 126 (6.9) <0.001
      History of colorectal surgery 259 (12.9) 85 (4.7) <0.001
      Procedure time (min) 13.0 (10–17) 10.2 (8–14) <0.001
      Polyp detection rate (%) 62.9 64.4 0.348
      ADR (%) 50.6 57.6 <0.001
       Male 57.2 62.8 0.014
       Female 43.2 52.9 <0.001
      Advanced ADR (%) 9.3 13.5 <0.001
      Adenoma per colonoscopy 1.08 1.30 <0.001
      Adenoma per polypectomy (%) 70.9 77.7 <0.001
      Variable Trainee (n=726) Expert (n=880) P-value
      Female sex 374 (51.5) 481 (54.7) 0.228
      Age (yr) 61.5 (57–68) 62.0 (56–69) 0.547
      History of abdominal surgery 50 (6.9) 49 (5.6) 0.322
      History of colorectal surgery 28 (3.9) 25 (2.8) 0.320
      Procedure time (min) 13 (10.0–17.0) 10 (8.0–13.5) <0.001
      Polyp detection rate (%) 66.0 65.0 0.721
      ADR (%) 51.8 53.4 0.551
       Male 59.9 62.4 0.538
       Female 44.1 45.9 0.643
      Advanced ADR (%) 9.8 10.1 0.890
      Adenoma per colonoscopy 1.14 1.20 0.499
      Adenoma per polypectomy (%) 69.3 72.5 0.074
      Trainee Total ADR (%) ADR (%) according to period
      P-value
      First 2 mo (June and July) Second 2 mo (August and September) Third 2 mo (October and November)
      Trainee 1 58.5 58.6 62.7 53.0 0.409
      Trainee 2 44.7 42.6 43.1 49.2 0.679
      Trainee 3 50.2 45.3 45.8 57.3 0.228
      P-value 0.008 0.063 0.022 0.606 -
      Table 1. Definition of terms

      Foot notes

      Table 2. Patients’ characteristics and colonoscopy outcomes in entire patients (n=3,820)

      Values are presented as number (%), median (interquartile range), or number only.

      ADR, adenoma detection rate.

      Table 3. Patients’ characteristics and colonoscopy outcomes in the screening/surveillance group (n=1,606)

      Values are presented as number (%), median (interquartile range), or number only.

      ADR, adenoma detection rate.

      Table 4. Changes in the ADR of the 3 trainees for the screening/surveillance group

      ADR, adenoma detection rate.


      Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
      TOP