Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 15, 2026
Establishment and Evaluation of a Risk Prediction Model for Pathological Escalation of Gastric Low-Grade Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Published on: February 16, 2024
Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance
Hank S Wang1, Joseph Pisegna, Rusha Modi
1Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA.
Background:
Endoscopist quality is benchmarked by the adenoma detection rate (ADR)-the proportion of cases with 1 or more adenomas removed. However, the ADR rewards the same credit for 1 versus more than 1 adenoma.
Objective:
We evaluated whether 2 endoscopist groups could have a similar ADR but detect significantly different total adenomas.
Design:
We retrospectively measured the ADR and multiple measures of total adenoma yield, including a metric called ADR-Plus, the mean number of incremental adenomas after the first. We plotted ADR versus ADR-Plus to create 4 adenoma detection patterns: (1) optimal (↑ADR/↑ADR-Plus); (2) one and done (↑ADR/↓ADR-Plus); (3) all or none (↓ADR/↑ADR-Plus); (4) none and done (↓ADR/↓ADR-Plus).
Setting:
Tertiary-care teaching hospital and 3 nonteaching facilities servicing the same patient pool.
Patients:
A total of 3318 VA patients who underwent screening between 2005 and 2009.
Main Outcome Measurements:
ADR, mean total adenomas detected, advanced adenomas detected, ADR-Plus.
Results:
The ADR was 28.8% and 25.7% in the teaching (n = 1218) and nonteaching groups (n = 2100), respectively (P = .052). Although ADRs were relatively similar, the teaching site achieved 23.5%, 28.7%, and 29.5% higher mean total adenomas, advanced adenomas, and ADR-Plus versus nonteaching sites (P < .001). By coupling ADR with ADR-Plus, we identified more teaching endoscopists as optimal (57.1% vs 8.3%; P = .02), and more nonteaching endoscopists in the none and done category (42% vs 0%; P = .047).
Limitations:
External generalizability, nonrandomized study.
Conclusion:
We found minimal ADR differences between the 2 endoscopist groups, but substantial differences in total adenomas; the ADR missed this difference. Coupling the ADR with other total adenoma metrics (eg, ADR-Plus) provides a more comprehensive assessment of adenoma clearance; implementing both would better distinguish high- from low-performing endoscopists.
