Skip to Main Content

An official website of the United States government

Government Funding Lapse

Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit  cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.

About this Publication
Title
Variability in flexible sigmoidoscopy performance among examiners in a screening trial.
Pubmed ID
16234008 (View this publication on the PubMed website)
Publication
Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2005 Aug; Volume 3 (Issue 8): Pages 792-7
Authors
Pinsky PF, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Kramer B, Hayes RB, Yokochi L, PLCO Project Team
Affiliations
  • Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. pp4f@nih.gov
Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The efficacy of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) in reducing colorectal cancer mortality is being evaluated in randomized trials. In 2 European trials, wide variability across examiners in FSG performance was noted. We report on the performance of examiners in the US randomized trial: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

METHODS: Screening was performed at 10 geographically dispersed clinical centers. Patients with screens positive for a lesion or mass were referred to their private health care providers for endoscopic follow-up evaluation; lesions were not removed and a biopsy examination was not performed at screening. FSG performance among 64 examiners at these centers, each performing 100 or more baseline FSG examinations, with an aggregate of almost 50,000 examinations, was analyzed.

RESULTS: Screen-positivity results among examiners ranged from 9%-58%, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 36%. CVs were 29% for distal polyp detection and 21% for distal adenoma detection. Inadequate rates ranged from 1%-27% (CV, 52%). Examiners with higher screen-positivity rates had higher false-positive rates, defined as a positive screen with no distal lesion found on endoscopic follow-up evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability exists in the rates of positive screens and in polyp and adenoma detection rates among FSG examiners performing the procedures using a common protocol.

Related CDAS Studies
Related CDAS Projects