Interval cancer after colonoscopy in the Austrian National Screening Programme: influence of physician and patient factors.


Journal

Gut
ISSN: 1468-3288
Titre abrégé: Gut
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985108R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2021
Historique:
received: 03 07 2019
revised: 05 09 2020
accepted: 07 09 2020
pubmed: 8 10 2020
medline: 11 1 2022
entrez: 7 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Postscreening colorectal cancer (PSCRC) after screening colonoscopy is associated with endoscopists' performance and characteristics of resected lesions. Prior studies have shown that adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a decisive factor for PSCRC, but correlations with other parameters need further analysis and ADR may change over time. Cohort study including individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy between 1/2008 and 12/2019 performed by physicians participating in a quality assurance programme in Austria. Data were linked with hospitalisation data for the diagnosis of PSCRC (defined as CRC diagnosis >6 months after colonoscopy). ADR was defined dynamically in relation to the time point of subsequent colonoscopies; high-risk groups of patients were those with an adenoma ≥10 mm, or with high-grade dysplasia, or villous or tubulovillous histology, or a serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia, or colonoscopies with ≥3 lesions. Main outcome was PSCRC for each risk group (negative colonoscopy, hyperplastic polyps, low-risk and high-risk group of patients) after colonoscopy by endoscopists with an ADR <20% compared with endoscopists with an ADR ≥20%. 352 685 individuals were included in the study (51.0% women, median age 60 years) of which 10.5% were classified as high-risk group. During a median follow-up of 55.4 months, 241 (0.06%) PSCRC were identified; of 387 participating physicians, 19.6% had at least one PSCRC (8.4% two or more). While higher endoscopist ADR decreased PSCRC incidence (HR per 1% increase 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98), affiliation to the high-risk group of patients was also associated with higher PSCRC incidence (HR 3.27, 95% CI 2.36 to 4.00). Similar correlations were seen with regards to high-risk, and advanced adenomas. The risk for PSCRC was significantly higher after colonoscopy by an endoscopist with an ADR <20% as compared with an endoscopist with an ADR ≥20% in patients after negative colonoscopy (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.0, p<0.001) and for the high-risk group of patients (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.22, p<0.001). A dynamic calculation of the ADR takes into account changes over time but confirms the correlation of ADR and interval cancer. Both lesion characteristics and endoscopists ADR may play a similar role for the risk of PSCRC. This should be considered in deciding about appropriate surveillance intervals in the future.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33023903
pii: gutjnl-2019-319427
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319427
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1309-1317

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Elisabeth Waldmann (E)

Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Quality Assurance Working Group, Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria.

Daniela Penz (D)

Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Quality Assurance Working Group, Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria.

Hana Šinkovec (H)

Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Institute of Clinical Biometrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Georg Heinze (G)

Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Institute of Clinical Biometrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Christoph Rinner (C)

Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Institute of Medical Information Management, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Lena Jiricka (L)

Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Institute of Clinical Biometrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Barbara Majcher (B)

Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Quality Assurance Working Group, Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria.

Anna Hinterberger (A)

Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Quality Assurance Working Group, Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria.

Michael Trauner (M)

Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Monika Ferlitsch (M)

Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria monika.ferlitsch@meduniwien.ac.at.
Quality Assurance Working Group, Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH