Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStanley, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorWiggins, Leslie
dc.contributor.authorJones, Dianne
dc.contributor.authorSzetoo, Wiyang
dc.contributor.authorMcIvor, Carolyn
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-19T02:03:26Z
dc.date.available2021-02-19T02:03:26Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn0016-5107
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.1400
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/402391
dc.description.abstractDetermining adenoma detection rate (ADR) is important to ensure quality colonoscopy. The minimum standard of 25% in screening patients aged >50 years is recommended by professional organisations. Despite reasonable uptake of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, most patients in Australian endoscopy units are symptomatic (diagnostic) or have a personal history of polyps (surveillance). While patients with a 10 family history of colorectal cancer <55 years fit screening criteria, due to overwhelming referrals of symptomatic patients, pure family history screening numbers are very low. Thus, screening colonoscopies are less representative of the actual work carried out by Australian endoscopists. Rex (2017) demonstrated that combination of screening, surveillance, and diagnostic ADR correlated well with pure screening ADR. However, as this novel review was based at one site, it needs replication. Aim Assess if the ADR in the screening population correlates significantly with the overall ADR for all indications. Method Colonoscopy records from July 2014 to September 2017 were retrospectively examined at two regional hospital endoscopy units in Australia. All procedures were allocated to Screening (positive FOBT or familial history of cancer), Surveillance (previous history of colonic polyps or cancer), or Diagnostic (symptomatic). If patients had more than one indication, diagnostic indications took precedence over surveillance indications, which took precedence over pure screening indications. Additionally, patients with IBD, polyposis syndromes, and preoperative cancer, with inadequate bowel prep, an anastomosis, or obstructive mass, or the caecum was unable to be intubated or aged <50 were excluded. Endoscopists were included in the analysis if they had completed at least 200 colonoscopies in the study period. Results 6315 colonoscopies by 14 endoscopists were analysed. Table 1 shows the ADR for each indication and overall ADR. 51% of procedures completed were for diagnostic indications, then screening (25%) and surveillance (24%).Screening ADR was higher than diagnostic ADR for all endoscopists. 38% of endoscopists had a higher screening ADR than surveillance ADR. Screening ADR was positively correlated with all ADR (r=0.8178, p=0.0003).Using the minimum recommendation of 25% for mixed gender population > 50 years, all endoscopists exceeded this target for all indication groupings individually and using the combined ADR. Discussion Despite the surveillance ADR being slightly below the screening ADR in this population, overall findings correlate with the Rex (2017) study. This supports expansion of ADR calculations to include all procedures. Additionally, it makes calculation of ADR simpler, efficient and more representative for endoscopists who work in units with proportionally high numbers of diagnostic colonoscopies.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofconferencenameAnnual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Gastrointestinal-Endoscopy / Digestive Disease Week
dc.relation.ispartofconferencetitleGastrointestinal Endoscopy
dc.relation.ispartofdatefrom2018-06-02
dc.relation.ispartofdateto2018-06-05
dc.relation.ispartoflocationWashington, DC, USA
dc.relation.ispartofpagefromAB159
dc.relation.ispartofpagetoAB159
dc.relation.ispartofissue6
dc.relation.ispartofvolume87
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.keywordsScience & Technology
dc.subject.keywordsLife Sciences & Biomedicine
dc.subject.keywordsGastroenterology & Hepatology
dc.titleValidity for calculating ADR for all indications correlates well with the standard of the screening ADR in the Australian population
dc.typeConference output
dc.type.descriptionE3 - Conferences (Extract Paper)
dcterms.bibliographicCitationStanley, S; Wiggins, L; Jones, D; Szetoo, W; McIvor, C, Validity for calculating ADR for all indications correlates well with the standard of the screening ADR in the Australian population, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2018, 87 (6), pp. AB159-AB159
dc.date.updated2021-02-19T01:59:44Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorSzetoo, Sean


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conference outputs
    Contains papers delivered by Griffith authors at national and international conferences.

Show simple item record