Cargando…

Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature

Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are no...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Desai, Madhav, Anderson, Joseph C., Kaminski, Michael, Thoguluva Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep, Fathallah, Jihan, Hassan, Cesare, Lieberman, David, Sharma, Prateek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8043815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33869735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1352-4095
_version_ 1783678371344941056
author Desai, Madhav
Anderson, Joseph C.
Kaminski, Michael
Thoguluva Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep
Fathallah, Jihan
Hassan, Cesare
Lieberman, David
Sharma, Prateek
author_facet Desai, Madhav
Anderson, Joseph C.
Kaminski, Michael
Thoguluva Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep
Fathallah, Jihan
Hassan, Cesare
Lieberman, David
Sharma, Prateek
author_sort Desai, Madhav
collection PubMed
description Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are not available. Methods  Electronic database search (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) was conducted for studies reporting detection rates of serrated polyps (SSL, Hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma) among average risk subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were pooled SDR (SSL detection rate) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR). Pooled proportion rates were calculated with 95 %CI with assessment of heterogeneity (I (2) ). Publication bias, regression test and 95 %prediction interval were calculated. Results  A total of 280,370 screening colonoscopies among average risk subjects that were eligible with 48.9 % males and an average age of 58.7 years (± 3.2). The pooled SDR was available from 16 studies: 2.5 % (1.8 %–3.4 %) with significant heterogeneity (I (2)  = 98.66 %) and the 95 % prediction interval ranging from 0.6 % to 9.89 %. When analysis was restricted to large (n > 1000) and prospective studies (n = 4), SDR was 2 % (1.1 %–3.3 %). Pooled PSPDR was 10 % (8.5 %–11.8 %; 12 studies). There was evidence of publication bias ( P  < 0.01). Conclusion  Definitions of SSL have been varying over years and there exists significant heterogeneity in prevalence reporting of serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Prevalence rate of 2 % for SSL and 10 % for proximal serrated polyps could serve as targets while robust high-quality data is awaited to find a future benchmark showing reduction in colorectal cancer arising from serrated pathway.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8043815
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80438152021-04-15 Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature Desai, Madhav Anderson, Joseph C. Kaminski, Michael Thoguluva Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep Fathallah, Jihan Hassan, Cesare Lieberman, David Sharma, Prateek Endosc Int Open Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are not available. Methods  Electronic database search (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) was conducted for studies reporting detection rates of serrated polyps (SSL, Hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma) among average risk subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were pooled SDR (SSL detection rate) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR). Pooled proportion rates were calculated with 95 %CI with assessment of heterogeneity (I (2) ). Publication bias, regression test and 95 %prediction interval were calculated. Results  A total of 280,370 screening colonoscopies among average risk subjects that were eligible with 48.9 % males and an average age of 58.7 years (± 3.2). The pooled SDR was available from 16 studies: 2.5 % (1.8 %–3.4 %) with significant heterogeneity (I (2)  = 98.66 %) and the 95 % prediction interval ranging from 0.6 % to 9.89 %. When analysis was restricted to large (n > 1000) and prospective studies (n = 4), SDR was 2 % (1.1 %–3.3 %). Pooled PSPDR was 10 % (8.5 %–11.8 %; 12 studies). There was evidence of publication bias ( P  < 0.01). Conclusion  Definitions of SSL have been varying over years and there exists significant heterogeneity in prevalence reporting of serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Prevalence rate of 2 % for SSL and 10 % for proximal serrated polyps could serve as targets while robust high-quality data is awaited to find a future benchmark showing reduction in colorectal cancer arising from serrated pathway. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021-04 2021-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8043815/ /pubmed/33869735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1352-4095 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Desai, Madhav
Anderson, Joseph C.
Kaminski, Michael
Thoguluva Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep
Fathallah, Jihan
Hassan, Cesare
Lieberman, David
Sharma, Prateek
Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature
title Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature
title_full Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature
title_fullStr Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature
title_full_unstemmed Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature
title_short Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature
title_sort sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8043815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33869735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1352-4095
work_keys_str_mv AT desaimadhav sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature
AT andersonjosephc sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature
AT kaminskimichael sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature
AT thoguluvachandrasekarviveksandeep sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature
AT fathallahjihan sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature
AT hassancesare sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature
AT liebermandavid sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature
AT sharmaprateek sessileserratedlesiondetectionratesduringaverageriskscreeningcolonoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthepublishedliterature