Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy and the Risk of Interval Cancer

Department of Gastroenterology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 05/2010; 362(19):1795-803. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain.
We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.
A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons).
The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy.

Download full-text


Available from: Joanna Didkowska, May 27, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer is a major public health challenge worldwide. In Europe it is the first malignancy in terms of incidence and the second in terms of mortality in both genders. Despite evidence indicating that removal of premalignant and early-stage cancer lesion scan greatly reduce mortality, remarkable differences are still found among countries both in terms of organized screening programs and of the tests used. In 2003 the European Council recommended that priority be given to activation of organized cancer screening programs, and various States have been making significant efforts to adopt effective prevention programs with international quality standards and centralizing screening organization and result evaluation. After a 2008 EU report on the state of screening program activation highlighted that little more than 50% (12/22) of Member States had colorectal cancer screening programs, screening programs have been adopted or earlier pilot projects have been extended nationwide. This paper examines the state of activation and the screening strategies of colorectal cancer screening programs in EU States as of July 2013.
    Preventive Medicine 05/2014; 62. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.010 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Hyoscine N-butylbromide (HBB), commonly used during colonoscopy to facilitate cecal intubation, has been proposed to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR). AIMS: To evaluate whether HBB administration increases the adenoma detection rate and influences patients' tolerance. METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients were randomized after cecal intubation to receive either 20mg HBB or placebo i.v. The number, size, histology and location of polyps were recorded. The air retained in the abdomen was either indirectly estimated by ΔAC (difference in the abdominal circumference measured before and after colonoscopy) or directly evaluated by patients' perception (visual analogic scale, range 0-100). RESULTS: 402 patients (44% male; mean age 57.7±12.5years) received either HBB or placebo. No differences in ADR (31.7% vs. 28%, p=0.48), advanced-ADR (7.4% vs. 10.5%, p=0.35) were observed between HBB and placebo group, respectively. A significantly lower detection rate of flat/depressed lesions was observed in the HBB group (0.5% vs. 5.5%, p=0.003). The ΔAC and the bloating perception were comparable between the two groups (p=0.22 and p=0.48, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: HBB administered before colonoscope withdrawal does not increase adenoma detection rate and seems to hamper the visualization of flat/depressed lesions. This finding raises concerns on the indiscriminate use of HBB during colonoscopy.
    Digestive and Liver Disease 03/2013; 45(8). DOI:10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.029 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND/AIM: A nation-wide survey of colonoscopy practice carried out in 2004 showed disappointing data on colonoscopy quality in Italy. Present study was aimed prospectively at re-evaluating quality indicators of colonoscopy and their changes over a five-year-period. METHODS: The main features of each Endoscopy Unit and performance indicators on consecutive colonoscopies performed in a 2-week period were recorded. Variation of colonoscopy quality was assessed by comparing caecal-intubation and polyp-detection rates in present survey with those collected five-years before; statistical analysis was restricted to centres participating in both data collections. RESULTS: 6158 colonoscopies from 116 centres were evaluated; unadjusted caecal-intubation rate was 83.0%, with 21.6% centres reporting a value >90%; mean polyp-detection rate was 32.0% (range 9.6-71.2% across centres). To assess variation of performance indicators, 4452 procedures from 77 centres were compared to 3589 procedures performed five-years before, in the same centres. A significant difference between the two rounds of data collections was observed for both caecal-intubation (82.6% versus 80.9%, p=0.043) and polyp-detection (31.3% versus 28.1%, p=0.002). However, 52 centres maintained a caecal-intubation rate constantly <90%. CONCLUSIONS: Present data show that colonoscopy in Italy is still far below quality standards and that a significant improvement of practice did not occur over the last five years. Strategies to enhance colonoscopy quality should be pursued by professional societies.
    Digestive and Liver Disease 08/2012; 45(1). DOI:10.1016/j.dld.2012.07.018 · 2.89 Impact Factor