Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jul;12(7):1119-26. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.11.034. Epub 2013 Dec 10.

Endoscopic detection of proximal serrated lesions and pathologic identification of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps vary on the basis of center.

Author information

1
Seattle, Washington.
2
University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
3
CRQ Insight, LLC, Mercer Island, Washington.
4
Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
5
Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, Atlanta, Georgia.
6
Fairview Southdale Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
7
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Epigenomics, Inc, Seattle, Washington.
8
Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
9
Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: drex@iupui.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS:

We investigated rates of detection of proximal serrated lesions in a cohort of average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopies.

METHODS:

We reviewed results from screening colonoscopies performed by attending gastroenterologists at 32 endoscopy centers from 2008-2010. Pathology slides were interpreted at the individual centers. For this analysis, serrated lesions included hyperplastic polyps larger than 10 mm, those interpreted as sessile serrated adenomas (or sessile serrated polyp), and traditional serrated adenomas. Rates of detection for conventional adenomas and serrated lesions were compared among centers.

RESULTS:

A total of 5778 lesions were detected in 7215 screening colonoscopies. Of the 5548 lesions with pathology results, 3008 (54.2%) were conventional adenomas, 350 (6.3%) were serrated, and 232 (4.2%) were proximal serrated. The proportion of colonoscopies with at least 1 proximal serrated lesion was 2.8% (range among centers, 0%-9.8%). The number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy ranged from 0.00-0.11 (average, 0.05 ± 0.25). Overall lesion detection rates correlated with proximal serrated lesion detection rates (R = 0.91, P < .0001); conventional adenoma and proximal serrated lesion detection rates also correlated (R = .43, P = .025). The detection rate of proximal serrated lesions differed significantly among centers (P < .0001); odds ratios for detection ranged from 0-0.79. Some centers' pathologists never identified proximal serrated lesions as sessile serrated adenomas/polyps.

CONCLUSIONS:

In an average-risk screening cohort, detection of proximal serrated lesions varied greatly among endoscopy centers. There was also substantial variation among pathologists in identification of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Nationally, a significant proportion of proximal serrated lesions may be missed during colonoscopy examination or incorrectly identified during pathology assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT00855348.

KEYWORDS:

Cancer Screening; Colon Cancer; Early Detection; Hyperplastic Polyp; Sessile Serrated Adenoma; Sessile Serrated Polyp

PMID:
24333512
DOI:
10.1016/j.cgh.2013.11.034
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center