Article

Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty.

Keenan ResearchCentre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, andDivision of General Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.04). 06/2012; 30(21):2664-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.4772
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We designed this study to evaluate the association of colonoscopy with colorectal cancer (CRC) death in the United States by site of CRC and endoscopist specialty.
We designed a case-control study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. We identified patients (cases) diagnosed with CRC age 70 to 89 years from January 1998 through December 2002 who died as a result of CRC by 2007. We selected three matched controls without cancer for each case. Controls were assigned a referent date (date of diagnosis of the case). Colonoscopy performed from January 1991 through 6 months before the diagnosis/referent date was our primary exposure. We compared exposure to colonoscopy in cases and controls by using conditional logistic regression controlling for covariates, stratified by site of CRC. We determined endoscopist specialty by linkage to the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile. We assessed whether the association between colonoscopy and CRC death varied with endoscopist specialty.
We identified 9,458 cases (3,963 proximal [41.9%], 4,685 distal [49.5%], and 810 unknown site [8.6%]) and 27,641 controls. In all, 11.3% of cases and 23.7% of controls underwent colonoscopy more than 6 months before diagnosis. Compared with controls, cases were less likely to have undergone colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.43); the association was stronger for distal (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.27) than proximal (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.64) CRC. The strength of the association varied with endoscopist specialty.
Colonoscopy is associated with a reduced risk of death from CRC, with the association considerably and consistently stronger for distal versus proximal CRC. The overall association was strongest if colonoscopy was performed by a gastroenterologist.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
55 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of colorectal cancer but may be more effective in reducing the risk of distal than proximal malignancies. To gain insight into the differences between proximal and distal colon endoscopic performance, we conducted a case-control study of advanced adenomas, the primary targets of colorectal endoscopy screening, and sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), newly recognized precursor lesions for a colorectal cancer subset that occurs most often in the proximal colon. The Group Health-based study population included 213 advanced adenoma cases, 172 SSP cases, and 1,704 controls aged 50-79 years, who received an index colonoscopy from 1998-2007. All participants completed a structured questionnaire covering endoscopy history. Participants with polyps underwent a standard pathology review to confirm the diagnosis and reclassify a subset as advanced adenomas or SSPs. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between endoscopy and advanced adenomas and SSPs separately; site-specific analyses were completed. Previous endoscopy was inversely associated with advanced adenomas in both the rectum/distal colon (OR=0.38; 95% CI: 0.26-0.56) and proximal colon (OR=0.31; 95% CI: 0.19-0.52), but there was no statistically significant association between previous endoscopy and SSPs (OR=0.80; 95%CI: 0.56-1.13). Our results support the hypothesis that the effect of endoscopy differs between advanced adenomas and SSPs. This may have implications for proximal colon cancer prevention and be due to the failure of endoscopy to detect/remove SSPs, or the hypothesized rapid development of SSPs.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 06/2012; 107(8):1213-9. · 9.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Quality indicators for colonoscopy have been developed, but the uptake of these metrics into practice is uncertain. Our aims were to assess physician perceptions regarding colonoscopy quality measurement and to quantify the perceived impact of quality measurement on clinical practice. Methods. We conducted in-person interviews with 15 gastroenterologists about their perceptions regarding colonoscopy quality. Results from these interviews informed the development of a 34-question web-based survey that was emailed to 1,500 randomlyselected members of the American College of Gastroenterology. Results. 160 invitations were undeliverable, and 167 out of 1340 invited physicians (12.5%) participated in the survey. Respondents and nonrespondents did not differ in age, sex, practice setting, or years since training. 38.8% of respondents receive feedback on their colonoscopy quality. The majority of respondents agreed with the use of completion rate (90%) and adenoma detection rate (83%) as quality indicators but there was less enthusiasm for withdrawal time (61%). 24% of respondents reported usually or always removing diminutive polyps solely to increase their adenoma detection rate, and 20% reported prolonging their procedure time to meet withdrawal time standards. Conclusions. A minority of respondents receives feedback on the quality of their colonoscopy. Interventions to increase continuous quality improvement in colonoscopy screening are needed.
    Gastroenterology Research and Practice 01/2014; 2014:510494. · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using a case-control design, we evaluated differences in risk factors for colorectal polyps according to histological type, anatomical site, and severity. Participants were enrollees in the Group Health Cooperative aged 20-79 years who underwent colonoscopy in Seattle, Washington, between 1998 and 2007 and comprised 628 adenoma cases, 594 serrated polyp cases, 247 cases with both types of polyps, and 1,037 polyp-free controls. Participants completed a structured interview, and polyps were evaluated via standardized pathology review. We used multivariable polytomous logistic regression to compare case groups with controls and with the other case groups. Factors for which the strength of the association varied significantly between adenomas and serrated polyps were sex (P < 0.001), use of estrogen-only postmenopausal hormone therapy (P = 0.01), and smoking status (P < 0.001). For lesion severity, prior endoscopy (P < 0.001) and age (P = 0.05) had significantly stronger associations with advanced adenomas than with nonadvanced adenomas; and higher education was positively correlated with sessile serrated polyps but not with other serrated polyps (P = 0.02). Statistically significant, site-specific associations were observed for current cigarette smoking (P = 0.05 among adenomas and P < 0.001 among serrated polyps), postmenopausal estrogen-only therapy (P = 0.01 among adenomas), and obesity (P = 0.01 among serrated polyps). These findings further illustrate the epidemiologic heterogeneity of colorectal neoplasia and may help elucidate carcinogenic mechanisms for distinct pathways.
    American journal of epidemiology 03/2013; · 5.59 Impact Factor