Colorectal cancer screening program using FIT: quality of colonoscopy varies according to hospital type

Abstract

Background and study aims To compare the quality of colonoscopy in a population-based coordinated program of colorectal cancer screening according to type of hospital (academic or non-academic).

Patients and methods Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT (≥ 20 ug Hb/g feces) between January 2009 and September 2016 were prospectively included at five academic and seven non-academic public hospitals. Screening colonoscopy quality indicators considered were adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, complications and bowel preparation quality.

Results A total of 48,759 patients underwent colonoscopy, 34,616 (80 %) in academic hospitals and 14,143 in non-academic hospitals. Among these cases, 19,942 (37.1 %) advanced adenomas and 2,607 (5.3 %) colorectal cancers (CRCs) were detected, representing a total of 22,549 (46.2 %) cases of advanced neoplasia. The adenoma detection rate was 64 %, 63.1 % in academic hospitals and 66.4 % in non-academic hospitals (P < 0.001). Rates of advanced adenoma detection, cecal intubation and adequate colonic preparation were 45.8 %, 96.2 % and 88.3 %, respectively, and in all cases were lower (implying worse quality care) in academic hospitals (45.3 % vs 48.7 %; odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.84 – 0.91; 95.9 % vs 97 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.38 – 0.69; and 86.4 % vs 93 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.45 – 0.5; respectively; P < 0.001 in all cases). In 13 patients, all in the academic hospital group, CRC was diagnosed after colonoscopy (0.26 cases × 1000 colonoscopies). Rates of CRC treated by endoscopy were similar in both types of hospital (30 %). The rate of severe complication was 1.2 % (602 patients), with no significant differences by hospital type: bleeding occurred in 1/147 colonoscopies and perforation in 1/329. One patient died within 30 days after screening colonoscopy.

Conclusions The quality of colonoscopy was better in non-academic hospitals. The rate of detection of advanced neoplasia was higher in non-academic hospitals and correlated with the rate of post-colonoscopy CRC.

^* These authors contributed equally.

• References

• 1 Departamento de Sanidad y Consumo. Cancer in the Basque Country. Incidence, mortality, survival and their trends. Gasteiz: 2010 1st. edn. http://www.osakidetza.euskadi.eus/contenidos/informacion/estado_salud/es_5463/adjuntos/cancer_en.pdf
• 2 GLOBOCAN. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx [Available: 2016-08-19]
• 3 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 4 Jover R, Herráiz M, Alarcón O. et al. Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 444-451
• 5 Arana-Arri E, Idigoras I, Uranga B. et al. EUSKOLON Group. Population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes using a faecal immunochemical test: should faecal haemoglobin cut-offs differ by age and sex?. BMC Cancer 2017; 17: 577
• 6 Idigoras I, Arrospide A, Portillo I. et al. Evaluation of the colorectal cancer screening Programme in the Basque Country (Spain) and its effectiveness based on the Miscan-colon model. BMC Public Health 2017; 18: 78
• 7 Von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: Overview and introduction to the full Supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 51-59
• 8 Red de Programas de Cribado de Cáncer. Situación de los Programas de Cribado de Cáncer Colorectal en España. 2012 [Available: 2016-08-19] http://www.programascancerdemama.org
• 9 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
• 10 Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC. et al. (Ed) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th. ed. New York: Springer; 2010
• 11 Adler J, Robertson DJ. Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1657-1664
• 12 Bjerrum A, Milter MC, Andersen O. Risk stratification and detection of new colorectal neoplasms after colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood test: experiences from a Danish screening cohort. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 27: 1433-1437
• 13 Portillo I, Arana-Arri E, Idigoras I. et al. Colorectal and interval cancers of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in the Basque Country (Spain). World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 2731-2742
• 14 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 15 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
• 16 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 17 Cubiella J, Castells A, Andreu M. et al. Correlation between adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy- and fecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programs. United European Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: 255-260
• 18 Zorzi M, Fedeli U, Schievano E. et al. Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2015; 64: 784-790
• 19 Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 858-864
• 20 Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE. et al. Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 770-775
• 21 Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS. et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72
• 22 Hoff G, Holme Ø, Bretthauer M. et al. Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E489-E495
• 23 Gupta M, Holub JL, Eisen G. Do indication and demographics for colonoscopy affect completion? A large national database evaluation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 22: 620-627
• 24 Bhangu A, Bowley DM, Horner R. et al. Volume and accreditation, but not specialty, affect quality standards in colonoscopy. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 1436-1444
• 25 Gimeno-García AZ, Baute JL, Hernandez G. et al. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation: a validated predictive score. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 536-543
• 26 Dik VK, Moons LM, Hüyük M. et al. Colonoscopy Quality Initiative. Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 665-672
• 27 Manes G, Repici A, Hassan C. MAGIC-P study group. Randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and acceptability of split- and standard-dose sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 662-669
• 28 Pigò F, Bertani H, Manno M. et al. Colonic Postpolypectomy Bleeding Is Related to Polyp Size and Heparin Use. Clin Endosc 2017; 50: 287-292
• 29 Veitch AM, Vanbiervliet G, Gershlick AH. et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British society of gastroenterology (BSG) and European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 385-402
• 30 Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Spencer FA. et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2012; 141 (Suppl. 02) e326S-e350S
• 31 Tepeš B, Bracko M, Novak Mlakar D. et al. Results of the FIT-based National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Slovenia. J Clin Gastroenterol 2017; 51: e52-e59
• 32 Panteris V, Haringsma J, Kuipers EJ. Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 941-951
• 33 Arora G, Mannalithara A, Singh G. et al. Risk of perforation from a colonoscopy in adults: a large population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 654-664