Colonic work-up after incomplete colonoscopy: significant new findings during follow-up

Background and study aims: Cecal intubation is not achieved in 2 – 23 % of colonoscopies. The efforts made by physicians to visualize the remaining colon and the number of missed significant lesions are unknown. This study evaluates 1) the reasons for incomplete colonoscopy, 2) the rates of complete colonic evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy, and 3) the number of (pre-) malignant lesions missed by incomplete colonoscopy.

Patients and methods: In this population-based cohort study index colonoscopies were performed between September and December 2005. Prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with an incomplete colonoscopy were analyzed. For up to 18 months after the index colonoscopy, any further examinations performed in these patients were identified retrospectively. These secondary examinations included: repeat colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT) colonography, barium enema, abdominal CT scan, and surgery involving the colorectum.

Results: Of 5278 colonoscopies, 511 were incomplete (9.7 %). The most frequent causes of incomplete colonoscopy were looping of the scope (20.4 %), patient discomfort (15.3 %), and obstructing tumor (13.9 %). Secondary examination was performed in 278 patients (54.4 %) after incomplete colonoscopy. Patients undergoing surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) (78.9 %) and those with anemia (73.1 %) most frequently received a secondary examination. Incomplete colonoscopies due to stenosis (78.9 %), severe inflammation (77.8 %) or an obstructing tumor (74.6 %) were most frequently followed by a secondary examination. In all of the follow-up examinations, CRC was diagnosed in 18 patients (3.5 %) and advanced adenoma in four patients (0.8 %).

Conclusions: In 4.3 % of the patients, advanced neoplasia was missed by incomplete colonoscopy. Our data therefore suggest that additional imaging is obligatory to visualize the remaining colon adequately.

References

• 1 Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E. et al . Cancer statistics, 2008.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;  58 71-96
• 2 Imperiale T F, Wagner D R, Lin C Y. et al . Using risk for advanced proximal colonic neoplasia to tailor endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;  139 959-965
• 3 Terhaar Sive Droste J S, Craanen M E, van der Hulst R WM. et al . Colonoscopic yield of colorectal neoplasia in daily clinical practice.  World J Gastroenterol. 2009;  15 1085-1092
• 4 Lieberman D A, Weiss D G, Bond J H. et al . Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.  N Engl J Med. 2000;  343 162-168
• 5 Rex D K, Bond J H, Winawer S. et al . Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1296-1308
• 6 Baxter N N, Goldwasser M A, Paszat L F. et al . Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;  150 1-8
• 7 Bowles C JA, Leicester R, Romaya C. et al . A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?.  Gut. 2004;  53 277-283
• 8 Rathgaber S W, Wick T M. Colonoscopy completion and complication rates in a community gastroenterology practice.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 556-562
• 9 Shah H A, Paszat L F, Saskin R. et al . Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study.  Gastroenterology. 2007;  132 2297-2303
• 10 Sieg A, Hachmoeller-Eisenbach U, Eisenbach T. Prospective evaluation of complications in outpatient GI endoscopy: a survey among German gastroenterologists.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 620-627
• 11 Rex D K, Kahi C J, Levin B. et al . Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;  56 160-167
• 12 Winawer S J, Zauber A G, O’Brien M J. et al . Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.  N Engl J Med. 1993;  328 901-906
• 13 Konishi F, Morson B C. Pathology of colorectal adenomas: a colonoscopic survey.  J Clin Pathol. 1982;  35 830-841
• 14 Church J M. Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not?.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;  89 556-560
• 15 Rizek R, Paszat L F, Stukel T A. et al . Rates of complete colonic evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy and their associated factors: a population-based study.  Med Care. 2009;  47 48-52
• 16 Martinez F, Kondylis P, Reilly J. Limitations of barium enema performed as an adjunct to incomplete colonoscopy.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;  48 1951-1954
• 17 Toma J, Paszat L F, Gunraj N. et al . Rates of new or missed colorectal cancer after barium enema and their risk factors: a population-based study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;  103 3142-3148
• 18 Copel L, Sosna J, Kruskal J B. et al . CT colonography in 546 patients with incomplete colonoscopy.  Radiology. 2007;  244 471-478
• 19 Gay G, Delvaux M. Double-balloon colonoscopy after failed conventional colonoscopy: a pilot series with a new instrument.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 788-792
• 20 Bressler B, Paszat L F, Vinden C. et al . Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 452-456
• 21 Bressler B, Paszat L F, Chen Z. et al . Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis.  Gastroenterology. 2007;  132 96-102

1 N. Neerincx and J. S. Terhaar contributed equally to this paper.