Evaluating adenoma detection and miss rates in tandem colonoscopy: Limitations of surrogate quality indicators

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key quality metric in colonoscopy. However, it may not accurately reflect the true number of adenomas and requires pathological evaluation of all detected polyps. The adenoma miss rate (AMR), which quantifies adenomas missed during colonoscopy, may provide a more comprehensive measure of colonoscopy quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of ADR and selected surrogate quality indicators (SQIs) in reflecting AMR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study, we analyzed asymptomatic individuals aged 50-72 years who underwent tandem colonoscopies using a split-dose bowel preparation regimen. Colonoscopies were performed by 7 endoscopists (experts with >10 years of experience from different institutions) over the last 5 years. Consecutive colonoscopies were performed by the same endoscopist under identical conditions. During the 2nd colonoscopy, polyps missed during the 1st colonoscopy were documented. All removed polyps were subsequently evaluated by a pathologist. RESULTS: We analyzed colonoscopy data from 356 patients (182 (51.12%) males and 174 (48.88%) females), representing a total of 712 colonoscopies. Adenomas were confirmed in 221 participants (62%). The number of adenomas missed during the 1st colonoscopy was 88, whereas 60 participants had at least 1 missed adenoma. No statistically significant variation among endoscopists was observed in the polyp detection rate (range: 48.000-64.000%, p = 0.658) or the adenoma detection rate (range: 54.000-74.000%, p = 0.151). Adenomas per positive participant ranged from 1.05 to 1.89, and adenomas per colonoscopy ranged from 0.70 to 1.44 (p = 0.063). The overall pooled lesion-level AMR was 20.046%. None of the SQIs showed a significant association with AMR (p > 0.050 for all comparisons). Although SQIs and ADR varied among endoscopists, no statistically significant variation in AMR was observed among the 7 endoscopists (p > 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: A high ADR alone does not ensure a lower AMR in tandem colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. In this limited provider-level sample, no statistically significant association was observed between SQIs and AMR.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine
Published
2026-09-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/213311
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating adenoma detection and miss rates in tandem colonoscopy: Limitations of surrogate quality indicators

Weijian Lun, Yuesheng Li
Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
article

Evaluating adenoma detection and miss rates in tandem colonoscopy: Limitations of surrogate quality indicators

Weijian Lun, Yuesheng Li
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key quality metric in colonoscopy. However, it may not accurately reflect the true number of adenomas and requires pathological evaluation of all detected polyps. The adenoma miss rate (AMR), which quantifies adenomas missed during colonoscopy, may provide a more comprehensive measure of colonoscopy quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of ADR and selected surrogate quality indicators (SQIs) in reflecting AMR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study, we analyzed asymptomatic individuals aged 50-72 years who underwent tandem colonoscopies using a split-dose bowel preparation regimen. Colonoscopies were performed by 7 endoscopists (experts with >10 years of experience from different institutions) over the last 5 years. Consecutive colonoscopies were performed by the same endoscopist under identical conditions. During the 2nd colonoscopy, polyps missed during the 1st colonoscopy were documented. All removed polyps were subsequently evaluated by a pathologist. RESULTS: We analyzed colonoscopy data from 356 patients (182 (51.12%) males and 174 (48.88%) females), representing a total of 712 colonoscopies. Adenomas were confirmed in 221 participants (62%). The number of adenomas missed during the 1st colonoscopy was 88, whereas 60 participants had at least 1 missed adenoma. No statistically significant variation among endoscopists was observed in the polyp detection rate (range: 48.000-64.000%, p = 0.658) or the adenoma detection rate (range: 54.000-74.000%, p = 0.151). Adenomas per positive participant ranged from 1.05 to 1.89, and adenomas per colonoscopy ranged from 0.70 to 1.44 (p = 0.063). The overall pooled lesion-level AMR was 20.046%. None of the SQIs showed a significant association with AMR (p > 0.050 for all comparisons). Although SQIs and ADR varied among endoscopists, no statistically significant variation in AMR was observed among the 7 endoscopists (p > 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: A high ADR alone does not ensure a lower AMR in tandem colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. In this limited provider-level sample, no statistically significant association was observed between SQIs and AMR.

Advances in Clinical and Experimental MedicineVol. 35(11)
Sun Yat-sen University (CN), Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (CN), North China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital (CN), Foshan Second People's Hospital (CN), Ninth Hospital of Nanchang (CN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.