Premium
Simple proxies for detection of clinically significant serrated polyps and data for their benchmarks
Author(s) -
Park SooKyung,
Park Sang Hyun,
Yang HyoJoon,
Jung Yoon Suk,
Park Jung Ho,
Sohn Chong Il,
Park Dong Il
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1111/jgh.14977
Subject(s) - medicine , hyperplastic polyp , adenoma , colorectal cancer , gastroenterology , correlation , correlation coefficient , nuclear medicine , cancer , colonoscopy , statistics , mathematics , geometry
Background and Aims Serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) is a potential quality indicator for preventing colorectal cancer associated with the serrated pathway. Using clinically significant SDR (CSSDR) has been suggested based on clinically significant serrated polyp's ability to be colorectal cancer precursors. Correlations between CSSDR and simpler SDRs, other than proximal SDR, have not yet been studied. We aimed to investigate which simpler SDR indicator is most relevant to CSSDR or adenoma detection rate (ADR) and provide benchmark data. Methods We analyzed 26 627 colonoscopies performed by 30 endoscopists. Clinically significant serrated polyps were defined as any sessile serrated adenoma/polyp or traditional serrated adenoma, hyperplastic polyps ≥ 5 mm in the proximal colon, or hyperplastic polyps ≥ 10 mm anywhere in the colon. Correlation of CSSDR and ADR with other simple SDRs, SDR‐pathology (sessile serrated adenoma/polyp or traditional serrated adenoma), SDR‐size (≥ 10 mm), and SDR‐location (proximal location) was analyzed using Pearson's correlation test and Steiger's z ‐test. Results The CSSDR was 1.7% to 13.2% (mean = 6.1%). The correlation coefficient of CSSDR/SDR‐size was 0.91 ( P < 0.01), which was higher than that of CSSDR/SDR‐location (0.64, P < 0.01) (0.91 vs 0.61, P < 0.01). The correlation coefficient of ADR/CSSDR and ADR/SDR‐location was 0.41 ( P < 0.01) and 0.81 ( P < 0.01), respectively. For ADR ≥ 25%, endoscopists' median screening CSSDR was 5.4%, while SDR‐location and SDR‐size were 10.9% and 2.2%, respectively. Conclusion Large SDR could be a simple proxy for CSSDR, in addition to proximal SDR. Large SDR and proximal SDR benchmarks of 2.2% and 10.9% may guide adequate serrated polyp detection with uniform definitions and simpler calculations.