Timely Completion of Direct Access Colonoscopy Is Noninferior to Office Scheduled for Screening and Surveillance.
Journal
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
ISSN: 1539-2031
Titre abrégé: J Clin Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7910017
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Apr 2024
18 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
03
01
2024
accepted:
27
02
2024
medline:
17
4
2024
pubmed:
17
4
2024
entrez:
17
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
We aimed to evaluate whether direct access colonoscopy (DAC) is noninferior to office-scheduled colonoscopy (OSC) for achieving successful colonoscopy. DAC may improve access to colonoscopy. We developed an algorithm assessing eligibility, risk for inadequate preparation, and need for nursing/navigator assistance. This was a retrospective, single-center study of DAC and OSC patients from June 5, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Patients were 45 to 75 years old with an indication of screening or surveillance. A successful colonoscopy met 3 criteria: complete colonoscopy (cecum, anastomosis, or ileum), adequate preparation (Boston Score ≥2/segment), and performed <90 days from initial patient contact. Unsuccessful colonoscopy did not meet ≥1 criteria. Secondary end points included days to successful colonoscopy, preparation quality, polyp detection, and 10-year recall rate. Noninferiority against risk ratio value of 0.85 was tested using 1-sided alpha of 0.05. A total of 1823 DAC and 828 OSC patients were eligible. DAC patients were younger, with a greater proportion of black patients and screening indications. For the outcome of successful colonoscopy, DAC was noninferior to OSC (DAC vs. OSC: 62.7% vs. 57.1%, RR 1.16, 95% LCL 1.09, P=0.001). For DAC, days to colonoscopy were fewer, and likelihood of 10-year recall after negative screening greater. Boston Score and polyp detection were similar for groups. Black patients were less likely to achieve successful colonoscopy; otherwise, groups were similar. For unsuccessful colonoscopies, proportionally more DAC patients canceled or no-showed while more OSC patients scheduled >90 days. DAC remained noninferior to OSC at 180 days. DAC was noninferior to OSC for achieving successful colonoscopy, comparing similarly in quality and efficiency outcomes.
Sections du résumé
GOALS
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate whether direct access colonoscopy (DAC) is noninferior to office-scheduled colonoscopy (OSC) for achieving successful colonoscopy.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
DAC may improve access to colonoscopy. We developed an algorithm assessing eligibility, risk for inadequate preparation, and need for nursing/navigator assistance.
STUDY
METHODS
This was a retrospective, single-center study of DAC and OSC patients from June 5, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Patients were 45 to 75 years old with an indication of screening or surveillance. A successful colonoscopy met 3 criteria: complete colonoscopy (cecum, anastomosis, or ileum), adequate preparation (Boston Score ≥2/segment), and performed <90 days from initial patient contact. Unsuccessful colonoscopy did not meet ≥1 criteria. Secondary end points included days to successful colonoscopy, preparation quality, polyp detection, and 10-year recall rate. Noninferiority against risk ratio value of 0.85 was tested using 1-sided alpha of 0.05.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 1823 DAC and 828 OSC patients were eligible. DAC patients were younger, with a greater proportion of black patients and screening indications. For the outcome of successful colonoscopy, DAC was noninferior to OSC (DAC vs. OSC: 62.7% vs. 57.1%, RR 1.16, 95% LCL 1.09, P=0.001). For DAC, days to colonoscopy were fewer, and likelihood of 10-year recall after negative screening greater. Boston Score and polyp detection were similar for groups. Black patients were less likely to achieve successful colonoscopy; otherwise, groups were similar. For unsuccessful colonoscopies, proportionally more DAC patients canceled or no-showed while more OSC patients scheduled >90 days. DAC remained noninferior to OSC at 180 days.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
DAC was noninferior to OSC for achieving successful colonoscopy, comparing similarly in quality and efficiency outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38630852
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000002000
pii: 00004836-990000000-00287
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7–33.
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2023. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2023.
Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–750.
Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, et al. ACG Clinical Guidelines: colorectal cancer screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116:458–479.
Davidson KW, Barry MJ, et alForce USPST. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325:1965–1977.
Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:250–281.
Society AC Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2020-2022. American Cancer Society. 2020. Accessed September 13, 2022.
Medina GG, McQueen A, Greisinger AJ, et al. What would make getting colorectal cancer screening easier? Perspectives from screeners and nonscreeners. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:895807.
Sifri R, Wender R, Lieberman D, et al. Developing a quality screening colonoscopy referral system in primary care practice: a report from the national colorectal cancer roundtable. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:40–49.
Mahajan RJ, Marshall JB. Prevalence of open-access gastrointestinal endoscopy in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:21–26.
Ahmed J, Mehmood S, Khan SA, et al. Direct access colonoscopy in primary care: is it a safe and practical approach? Scott Med J. 2013;58:168–172.
Kapila N, Singh H, Kandragunta K, et al. Open access colonoscopy for colorectal cancer prevention: an evaluation of appropriateness and quality. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64:2798–2805.
Riggs KR, Segal JB, Shin EJ, et al. Prevalence and cost of office visits prior to colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. JAMA. 2016;315:514–515.
Ghaoui R, Ramdass S, Friderici J, et al. Open access colonoscopy: critical appraisal of indications, quality metrics and outcomes. Dig Liver Dis. 2016;48:940–944.
Hadlock S, Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, et al. Open-access colonoscopy on Ontario: associated factors and quality. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013;27:341–346.
Chandrasekhara V, Eloubeidi MA, et alCommittee ASoP. Open-access endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1326–1329.
Rainis T, Keren D, Goldstein O, et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of colonoscopy in Israeli patients in an open access referral system. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007;41:394–399.
Allen P, Gately L, Banks P, et al. Direct access colonoscopy: impact of intervention on time to colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment in North West Tasmania. Intern Med J. 2017;47:1129–1135.
Maruthachalam K, Stoker E, Chaudhri S, et al. Evolution of the two-week rule pathway—direct access colonoscopy vs outpatient appointments: one year’s experience and patient satisfaction survey. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7:480–485.
Whitelaw L, Hammond K, Cumming M, et al. The Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic: improving time to colonoscopy for eligible positive faecal occult blood test patients in Broken Hill NSW. Aust J Rural Health. 2020;28:81–86.
Clarke L, Pockney P, Gillies D, et al. Time to colonoscopy for patients accessing the direct access colonoscopy service compared to the normal service in Newcastle, Australia. Intern Med J. 2019;49:1132–1137.
Baron TH, Kimery BD, Sorbi D, et al. Strategies to address increased demand for colonoscopy: guidelines in an open endoscopy practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:178–182.
Miller SJ, Sly JR, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Racial/ethnic minorities ineligible for direct access colonoscopy (DAC): identifying patients who fall through the cracks. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2015;2:86–92.
Morini S, Hassan C, Meucci G, et al. Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:175–179.
Charles RJ, Cooper GS, Wong RC, et al. Effectiveness of open-access endoscopy in routine primary-care practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:183–186.
Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–857.
Gandhi K, Tofani C, Sokach C, et al. Patient characteristics associated with quality of colonoscopy preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:357–369.e10.
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.
Calderwood AH, Schroy PC III, Lieberman DA, et al. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:269–276.
Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A, et al. Quantification of adequate bowel Preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:396–405; quiz e14-5.
Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:31–53.
Manem N, Donovan K, Miller D, et al. Open-access colonoscopy quality indicators and patient perception using split-dose bowel preparation. JGH Open. 2021;5:563–567.
Partin MR, Gravely A, Gellad Z, et al. Factors associated with missed and cancelled colonoscopy appointments at Veterans Health Administration Facilities. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:259–267.
Vijan S. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:575.
Liss DT, Baker DW. Understanding current racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:228–236.
Seeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN, et al. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer. 2004;100:2093–2103.
Weiss JM, Smith MA, Pickhardt PJ, et al. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening variation among primary-care providers and clinics. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1159–1167.
Klabunde CN, Cronin KA, Breen N, et al. Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:1611–1621.
Shokar NK, Carlson CA, Weller SC. Factors associated with racial/ethnic differences in colorectal cancer screening. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008;21:414–426.
Minoli G, Meucci G, Bortoli A, et al. The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:39–44.
Mahajan RJ, Barthel JS, Marshall JB. Appropriateness of referrals for open-access endoscopy. How do physicians in different medical specialties do? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2065–2069.
Mangualde J, Cremers MI, Vieira AM, et al. Appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy in a non-academic hospital. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;3:195–200.
Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuntz KM, Knudsen AB, et al. Contribution of screening and survival differences to racial disparities in colorectal cancer rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:728–736.
Society AC. Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2019-2021. Accessed September 13, 2022.