Assessment of the multiple components of the variability in the adenoma detection rate in sigmoidoscopy screening, and lessons for training.
ABSTRACT The determinants of the observed variability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in endoscopy screening have not yet been fully explained.
Between November 1999 and November 2006 13 764 people (7094 men, 6670 women; age range 55-64) underwent screening flexible sigmoidoscopy at five hospital endoscopy units in Turin. To study the determinants of the ADR for distal adenomas, accounting for patient, examiner, and hospital characteristics, we applied a multivariate multilevel regression model.
Average ADRs for all adenomas and for advanced adenomas (size > or = 10 mm, villous component > 20 %, high grade dysplasia) were 13.5 % (range 5.2 %-25.0 %) and 6.4 % (3.1 %-10.7 %) for men, and 8.0 % (2.5 %-14.0 %) and 3.7 % (0.2 % - 7.4 %) for women. In multivariate analysis, increased ADR of advanced adenomas was associated with male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95 %CI 1.49 - 2.11), self-report of one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) (1.44, 1.11-1.86), or of recent-onset rectal bleeding (1.73, 1.24-2.40). Adjusting for these variables, a significantly lower ADR was found for endoscopists with either a lower rate of incomplete sigmoidoscopy (< 9 %; OR 0.59, 95 %CI 0.41-0.87) or a higher rate (> 12 %; 0.64, 0.45-0.91), or with low activity volume (< 85 sigmoidoscopies/year; 0.66, 0.50-0.86). Residual variability explained by the endoscopy center effect was about 1 % and statistically significant.
Endoscopist performance in flexible sigmoidoscopy CRC screening is highly variable. Low volume of screening activity independently predicts lower ADR, suggesting that operators devoting more time to screening sigmoidoscopy may perform better. Variability among pathologists in adenoma classification might explain part of the residual variability across endoscopy units.
Article: Colorectal cancer screening.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide and a major health problem. In this review, the different approaches for CRC screening will be outlined with emphasis on evidence-based medicine. Evidence from randomized trials on the effectiveness of CRC screening is summarized. Several screening tools for CRC are available. They can be categorized according to their mode of action: early detection tools such as the faecal occult blood test (FOBT) and cancer prevention tools such as flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Meta-analyses of randomized trials show that FOBT screening reduces CRC mortality by 16% (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.9) compared with 30% (risk ratio 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.81) for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. FOBT screening is cheap and noninvasive, but results in large numbers of false-positive tests and needs to be repeated frequently. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is more invasive, but is effective for once-only screening. Although colonoscopy screening is used in some countries, no randomized trials have been conducted to estimate its benefit, and therefore, it should not be recommended at the present time. Faecal occult blood test and flexible sigmoidoscopy are the two CRC screening tools that can be recommended as they have been proven to reduce CRC mortality. Colonoscopy has the potential to be superior to FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy, but needs to be evaluated in randomized trials before any recommendation can be provided.Journal of Internal Medicine 05/2011; 270(2):87-98. · 6.46 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although faecal and endoscopic tests appear to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, further technological and organizational advances are expected to improve the performance and acceptability of these tests. Several attempts to improve endoscopic technology have been made in order to improve the detection rate of neoplasia, especially in the proximal colon. Based on the latest evidence on the long-term efficacy of screening tests, new strategies including endoscopic and faecal modalities have also been proposed in order to improve participation and the diagnostic yield of programmatic screening. Overall, several factors in terms of both efficacy and costs of screening strategies, including the high cost of biological therapy for advanced colorectal cancer, are likely to affect the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in the future.Gastroenterology Research and Practice 01/2012; 2012:846985. · 1.62 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Emerging results indicate that screening improves survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Therefore, screening programs are already implemented or are being considered for implementation in Asia, Europe and North America. At present, a great variety of screening methods are available including colono- and sigmoidoscopy, CT- and MR-colonography, capsule endoscopy, DNA and occult blood in feces, and so on. The pros and cons of the various tests, including economic issues, are debated. Although a plethora of evaluated and validated tests even with high specificities and reasonable sensitivities are available, an international consensus on screening procedures is still not established. The rather limited compliance in present screening procedures is a significant drawback. Furthermore, some of the procedures are costly and, therefore, selection methods for these procedures are needed. Current research into improvements of screening for colorectal cancer includes blood-based biological markers, such as proteins, DNA and RNA in combination with various demographically and clinically parameters into a "risk assessment evaluation" (RAE) test. It is assumed that such a test may lead to higher acceptance among the screening populations, and thereby improve the compliances. Furthermore, the involvement of the media, including social media, may add even more individuals to the screening programs. Implementation of validated RAE and progressively improved screening methods may reform the cost/benefit of screening procedures for colorectal cancer. Therefore, results of present research, validating RAE tests, are awaited with interest.Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology 08/2011; 46(11):1283-94. · 2.08 Impact Factor