Adenoma Detection Rates by Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk

JAMA Pub Date : 2024-12-16 DOI:10.1001/jama.2024.22975
Nastazja D. Pilonis, Piotr Spychalski, Mette Kalager, Magnus Løberg, Paulina Wieszczy, Joanna Didkowska, Urszula Wojciechowska, Jaroslaw Kobiela, Jaroslaw Regula, Thomas Rösch, Michael Bretthauer, Michal F. Kaminski
{"title":"Adenoma Detection Rates by Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk","authors":"Nastazja D. Pilonis, Piotr Spychalski, Mette Kalager, Magnus Løberg, Paulina Wieszczy, Joanna Didkowska, Urszula Wojciechowska, Jaroslaw Kobiela, Jaroslaw Regula, Thomas Rösch, Michael Bretthauer, Michal F. Kaminski","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.22975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ImportancePatients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colonoscopy have lower colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after screening colonoscopy (ie, postcolonoscopy CRC). Among physicians with an ADR above the recommended threshold, it is unknown whether improving ADR is associated with a lower incidence of CRC in their patients.ObjectiveTo determine the association of improved ADR in physicians with a range of ADR values at baseline with CRC incidence among their patients.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA total of 789 physicians in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program were studied between 2000 and 2017, with final follow-up on December 31, 2022. Joinpoint regression analyses were used to identify trends between changes in ADR and postcolonoscopy CRC incidence. Rates of CRC after colonoscopy were compared between physicians whose ADR improved and those without improvement. ADR improvement was defined as either an improvement by at least 1 ADR sextile category or remaining in the highest category.ExposurePhysician ADR.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAssociation of improved ADR with postcolonoscopy CRC incidence.ResultsOf 485 615 patients (mean [SD] age, 57 [5.41] years; 60% female), 1873 CRC diagnoses and 474 CRC-related deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 10.2 years. Among individual physicians at baseline, median (IQR) ADR was 21.8% (15.9%-28.2%) and maximum ADR was 63.0%. Joinpoint regression showed a change in CRC incidence trends at an ADR level of 26%, corresponding to a CRC incidence of 27.1 per 100 000 person-years. Patients of physicians whose ADR was less than 26% at baseline and improved during follow-up had a postcolonoscopy CRC incidence of 31.8 (95% CI, 29.5-34.3) per 100 000 person-years, compared with 40.7 (95% CI, 37.8-43.8) per 100 000 person-years for patients of physicians with an ADR of less than 26% at baseline who did not improve during follow-up (difference, 8.9/100 000 person-years [95% CI, 5.06-12.74]; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> &amp;amp;lt; .001). Patients of physicians whose ADR was above 26% at baseline and improved during follow-up had a postcolonoscopy CRC incidence of 23.4 (95% CI, 18.4-29.8) per 100 000 person-years, compared with 22.5 (95% CI, 18.3-27.6) for patients of physicians whose ADR was above 26% at baseline and did not improve during follow-up (difference, 0.9/100 000 person-years [95% CI, −6.46 to 8.26]; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .80).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this observational study, improved ADR over time was statistically significantly associated with lower CRC risk in patients who underwent colonoscopy compared with absence of ADR improvement, but only among patients whose physician had a baseline ADR of less than 26%.","PeriodicalId":518009,"journal":{"name":"JAMA","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.22975","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ImportancePatients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colonoscopy have lower colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after screening colonoscopy (ie, postcolonoscopy CRC). Among physicians with an ADR above the recommended threshold, it is unknown whether improving ADR is associated with a lower incidence of CRC in their patients.ObjectiveTo determine the association of improved ADR in physicians with a range of ADR values at baseline with CRC incidence among their patients.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA total of 789 physicians in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program were studied between 2000 and 2017, with final follow-up on December 31, 2022. Joinpoint regression analyses were used to identify trends between changes in ADR and postcolonoscopy CRC incidence. Rates of CRC after colonoscopy were compared between physicians whose ADR improved and those without improvement. ADR improvement was defined as either an improvement by at least 1 ADR sextile category or remaining in the highest category.ExposurePhysician ADR.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAssociation of improved ADR with postcolonoscopy CRC incidence.ResultsOf 485 615 patients (mean [SD] age, 57 [5.41] years; 60% female), 1873 CRC diagnoses and 474 CRC-related deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 10.2 years. Among individual physicians at baseline, median (IQR) ADR was 21.8% (15.9%-28.2%) and maximum ADR was 63.0%. Joinpoint regression showed a change in CRC incidence trends at an ADR level of 26%, corresponding to a CRC incidence of 27.1 per 100 000 person-years. Patients of physicians whose ADR was less than 26% at baseline and improved during follow-up had a postcolonoscopy CRC incidence of 31.8 (95% CI, 29.5-34.3) per 100 000 person-years, compared with 40.7 (95% CI, 37.8-43.8) per 100 000 person-years for patients of physicians with an ADR of less than 26% at baseline who did not improve during follow-up (difference, 8.9/100 000 person-years [95% CI, 5.06-12.74]; P &amp;lt; .001). Patients of physicians whose ADR was above 26% at baseline and improved during follow-up had a postcolonoscopy CRC incidence of 23.4 (95% CI, 18.4-29.8) per 100 000 person-years, compared with 22.5 (95% CI, 18.3-27.6) for patients of physicians whose ADR was above 26% at baseline and did not improve during follow-up (difference, 0.9/100 000 person-years [95% CI, −6.46 to 8.26]; P = .80).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this observational study, improved ADR over time was statistically significantly associated with lower CRC risk in patients who underwent colonoscopy compared with absence of ADR improvement, but only among patients whose physician had a baseline ADR of less than 26%.
医生的腺瘤检出率和随后的结直肠癌风险
结肠镜检查时腺瘤检出率(adr)较高的医生的患者在结肠镜筛查后(即结肠镜后CRC)发生结直肠癌(CRC)的风险较低。在ADR高于推荐阈值的医生中,尚不清楚ADR的改善是否与患者CRC发病率的降低有关。目的确定医师改善不良反应(ADR)的基线值范围与患者CRC发病率之间的关系。设计、环境和参与者在2000年至2017年期间对波兰结肠镜筛查项目的789名医生进行了研究,最终随访时间为2022年12月31日。联合点回归分析用于确定不良反应变化与结肠镜后结直肠癌发病率之间的趋势。比较ADR改善和未改善的医生结肠镜检查后结直肠癌的发生率。ADR改善被定义为改善至少1个ADR六分类别或保持在最高类别。ExposurePhysician ADR。主要结局和措施:改善不良反应与结肠镜后结直肠癌发病率的关系。结果48615例患者(平均[SD]年龄57[5.41]岁;在10.2年的中位随访期间,有1873例CRC诊断和474例CRC相关死亡。在个体医生中,基线时,中位ADR (IQR)为21.8%(15.9%-28.2%),最大ADR为63.0%。联合点回归显示,ADR水平下CRC发病率变化趋势为26%,对应于CRC发病率为27.1 / 10万人-年。基线时不良反应小于26%并在随访期间改善的医生的患者结肠镜后结直肠癌发病率为每10万人年31.8例(95% CI, 29.5-34.3),而基线时不良反应小于26%但在随访期间未改善的医生的患者结肠镜后结直肠癌发病率为每10万人年40.7例(95% CI, 37.8-43.8)(差异为8.9/10万人年[95% CI, 5.06-12.74];P, amp;肝移植;措施)。基线时ADR高于26%并在随访期间改善的医生的结肠镜后结直肠癌发病率为每10万人年23.4例(95% CI, 18.4-29.8),而基线时ADR高于26%且在随访期间未改善的医生的结肠镜后结直肠癌发病率为22.5例(95% CI, 18.3-27.6)(差异为0.9/10万人年[95% CI, - 6.46 - 8.26];P = .80)。结论和相关性在这项观察性研究中,与没有ADR改善的患者相比,接受结肠镜检查的患者,随着时间的推移,ADR的改善与结直肠癌风险的降低具有统计学意义,但仅适用于基线ADR低于26%的患者。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信