Anatomic and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates as Quality Metrics Determined via Natural Language Processing

OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study were to use an open-source natural language-processing tool (NLP) to accurately assess total, anatomic (left and right colon), and advanced adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and to determine how these metrics differ between high- and low-performing endoscopists.METHODS:An NLP tool was developed using the Apache Unstructured Information Management Architecture and queried all procedure records for screening colonoscopies performed in patients aged 50–75 years at a single institution from April 1998 to December 2013. Validation was performed on 200 procedures and associated pathology reports. The total, left colon, right colon, and advanced ADRs were calculated and physicians were stratified by total ADR (<20% and ≥20%). Comparisons of colonoscopy characteristics and ADR comparisons (advanced, left, right, and right/left ratio) were determined by t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.RESULTS:The total ADR for 34,998 screening colonoscopies from 1998 to 2013 was 20.3%, as determined via NLP. The institutional left and right colon ADRs were 10.1% and 12.5%, respectively. The overall advanced ADR was 4.4%. Endoscopists with total ADRs ≥20% had higher left (12.4%) and right colon (16.4%) ADRs than endoscopists with ADRs <20% (left ADR=5.6%, right ADR=5.8%). Endoscopists with ADRs ≥20% had higher individual right/left ADR ratios than those with low ADRs (1.4 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.4) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0.4), P=0.02). There was a moderate positive correlation between advanced ADR detection and both right (Spearman's rho=0.5, P=0.05) and left colon (Spearman's rho=0.4, P=0.03) ADRs.CONCLUSIONS:Institutions should consider the use of anatomic and advanced ADRs determined via natural language processing as a refined measure of colonoscopy quality. The ability to continuously monitor and provide feedback on colonoscopy quality metrics may encourage endoscopists to refine technique, resulting in overall improvements in adenoma detection.

[1]  H. Brenner,et al.  Protection From Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  L. Rabeneck,et al.  Risk of developing proximal versus distal colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. , 2008, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[3]  D. Rex,et al.  Improving protection against proximal colon cancer by colonoscopy , 2011, Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology.

[4]  M. Bretthauer,et al.  The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) screening study: baseline findings and implementations for clinical work-up in age groups 50-64 years. , 2003, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.

[5]  J. Hentz,et al.  Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rates in the Proximal and Distal Colon , 2013, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[6]  L. Bisanti,et al.  Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  Harminder Singh,et al.  Predictors of Colorectal Cancer After Negative Colonoscopy: A Population-Based Study , 2010, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[8]  E. Kliewer,et al.  The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. , 2010, Gastroenterology.

[9]  G. G.,et al.  The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) Screening Study , 2003 .

[10]  Gheorghe Doros,et al.  The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. , 2007, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[11]  M. Wallace,et al.  Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. , 2011, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[12]  A. M. Leufkens,et al.  Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study , 2012, Endoscopy.

[13]  B. Jacobson,et al.  Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. , 2009, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[14]  Timothy D. Imler,et al.  Gastroenterology and medical informatics: an evolving collaboration for quality improvement. , 2013, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[15]  H. Brenner,et al.  Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: Population-based case-control study , 2010 .

[16]  D. Early,et al.  Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. , 2012, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[17]  Timothy D. Imler,et al.  Natural language processing accurately categorizes findings from colonoscopy and pathology reports. , 2013, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[18]  Aasma Shaukat,et al.  Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2012 , 2012, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[20]  L. Rabeneck,et al.  Association of Colonoscopy and Death From Colorectal Cancer , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[21]  Henk Harkema,et al.  Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures. , 2012, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[22]  D. Faigel,et al.  Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. , 2012, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[23]  M. Kaminski,et al.  Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy , 2013 .

[24]  B. Spiegel,et al.  Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. , 2013, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

[25]  K. Rajan,et al.  Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate Is Independent of Nonadvanced Adenoma Detection Rate , 2013, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[26]  N. Dubrawsky.  Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[27]  Reiko Nishihara,et al.  Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  Marcin Polkowski,et al.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  D. Heresbach,et al.  Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies , 2008, Endoscopy.

[30]  Wendy W. Chapman,et al.  Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures , 2011, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[31]  Timothy D. Imler,et al.  Clinical decision support with natural language processing facilitates determination of colonoscopy surveillance intervals. , 2014, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[32]  L. Bisanti,et al.  Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial--SCORE. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.