Serrated polyp detection and risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a population-based study

被引:55
|
作者
van Toledo, David E. F. W. M. [1 ]
IJspeert, Joep E. G. [1 ]
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. [2 ]
Bleijenberg, Arne G. C. [1 ]
van Leerdam, Monique E. [3 ,4 ]
van der Vlugt, Manon [1 ]
Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris [5 ]
Spaander, Manon C. W. [6 ]
Dekker, Evelien [1 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Med Ctr, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Dept Epidemiol & Data Sci, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Netherlands Canc Inst Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Dept Gastroenterol, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Leiden Univ, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Med Ctr, Leiden, Netherlands
[5] Erasmus MC, Dept Publ Hlth, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[6] Erasmus MC, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[7] Univ Amsterdam, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Med Ctr, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
来源
关键词
ADENOMA DETECTION RATE; RATES;
D O I
10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00090-5
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-established quality indicator for colonoscopy and is inversely associated with the incidence of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. However, interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers frequently develop from serrated polyps, which are not included in the ADR. Therefore, the proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) has been proposed as a quality indicator, but its association with interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer has not been studied. We aimed to evaluate this potential association based on data collected in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme. Methods In this population-based study, using colonoscopy data from the Dutch faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programme and cancer data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we evaluated the association between endoscopists' individual PSPDR and their patients' risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer with a shared frailty Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis. Participants in the screening programme who were eligible for inclusion were aged 55-76 years, had a positive faecal immunochemical test (cutoff 15 mu g Hb/g faeces at start and changed mid-2014 to 47 mu g Hb/g faeces), were asymptomatic, and underwent a colonoscopy between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2020. The PSPDR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies in which at least one serrated polyp proximal to the descending colon was detected, confirmed by histopathology. The ADR was defined as the proportion of all colonoscopies in which at least one conventional adenoma was detected, confirmed by histopathology. Detection rates were determined for each endoscopist individually. We additionally evaluated the risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer for endoscopists with a PSPDR and ADR above the median versus endoscopists with either one or both parameters below the median. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8350. Findings During the study period, 329 104 colonoscopies were done, of which 277 555, done by 441 endoscopists, were included in the PSPDR calculations. The median PSPDR was 11.9% (IQR 8.3-15.8) and median ADR was 66.3% (61.4-69.9). The correlation between the PSDPR and ADR was moderate (r=0.59; p < 0middot0001). During a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 21-42), 305 interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers were detected. For each percentage point increase in PSPDR, the adjusted interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer hazard was 7% lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.95; p < 0middot0001). Compared with endoscopists with a PSPDR greater than 11middot9% and ADR greater than 66middot3%, the HR of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer for endoscopists with a low PSPDR and high ADR was 1.79 (95% CI 1.22-2.63), for endoscopists with a high PSPDR and low ADR was 1.97 (1.19-3.24), and for endoscopists with a low PSPDR and low ADR was 2.55 (1.89-3.45). Gastroenterology, (Prof Gastroenterology the (Prof Interpretation The PSPDR of an endoscopist is inversely associated with the incidence of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Implementation of PSPDR monitoring, in addition to ADR monitoring, could optimise colorectal cancer prevention. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:747 / 754
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Association Between Polyp Detection Rate and Post-Colonoscopy Cancer Among Patients Undergoing Diagnostic Colonoscopy
    Gingold-Belfer, Rachel
    Boltin, Doron
    Sneh-Arbib, Orly
    Comaneshter, Doron
    Cohen, Arnon
    Flugelman, Anath
    Vilkin, Alex
    Niv, Yaron
    Keinan, Lital Boker
    Dotan, Iris
    Levi, Zohar
    [J]. CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2021, 19 (01) : 202 - 204
  • [42] Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate in the era of highdefinition colonoscopy
    Mineo Iwatate
    Tomoyuki Kitagawa
    Yasumi Katayama
    Naohiko Tokutomi
    Shinichi Ban
    Santa Hattori
    Noriaki Hasuike
    Wataru Sano
    Yasushi Sano
    Masaya Tamano
    [J]. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2017, 23 (42) : 7609 - 7617
  • [43] Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers in Sweden - A 10-Year Population Based Study
    Forsberg, Anna M.
    Hammar, Ulf
    Ekbom, Anders
    Hultcrantz, Rolf
    [J]. GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2016, 150 (04) : S753 - S754
  • [44] RELIABILITY OF POST-COLONOSCOPY COLORECTAL CANCER ALGORITHMS
    Beaton, David
    Rutter, Matthew
    Beintaris, Iosif
    [J]. GUT, 2019, 68 : A15 - A16
  • [45] Interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program
    van de Schootbrugge-vandermeer, Hilliene J.
    Kooyker, Arthur I.
    Wisse, Pieter H. A.
    Nagtegaal, Iris D.
    Geuzinge, Hiltje A.
    Toes-Zoutendijk, Esther
    de Jonge, Lucie
    Breekveldt, Emilie C. H.
    van Vuuren, Anneke J.
    van Kemenade, Folkert J.
    Ramakers, Christian R. B.
    Dekker, Evelien
    Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
    Spaander, Manon C. W.
    van Leerdam, Monique E.
    [J]. ENDOSCOPY, 2023, 55 (12) : 1061 - 1069
  • [46] INTERVAL POST-COLONOSCOPY COLORECTAL CANCER IN A REFERRAL CENTER COHORT: A GOOD REASON TO IMPROVE THE COLONOSCOPY QUALITY
    Gomez, Estanislao J.
    Pereyra, Lisandro
    Mora Nunez, Andres
    Bentolila, Federico E.
    Mella, Jose M.
    Panigadi, Nicolas
    Gonzalez, Raquel
    Criniti, Juan M.
    Fischer, Carolina
    Roel, Mariela
    Omodeo, Mariana
    Cimmino, Daniel G.
    Pedreira, Silvia C.
    Boerr, Luis A.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2018, 87 (06) : AB476 - AB477
  • [47] VALIDATION OF POST-COLONOSCOPY COLORECTAL CANCER (PCCRC) CASES IN ENGLISH POPULATION DATA
    Burr, Nicholas
    Beaton, David
    Morris, Eva
    Trudgill, Nigel
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2023, 97 (06) : AB277 - AB277
  • [48] Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Are More Likely to Develop Through the Serrated Pathway of Colorectal Neoplasia
    Nishihara, Reiko
    Lochhead, Paul
    Wu, Kana
    Giovannucci, Edward
    Fuchs, Charles
    Ogino, Shuji
    Chan, Andrew T.
    [J]. GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2013, 144 (05) : S145 - S145
  • [49] Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: Characteristics and predictive factors
    Muiloz Garcia-Borruel, Maria
    Hervas Molina, Antonio Jose
    Rodriguez Peralvarez, Manuel L.
    Moreno Rincon, Estefania
    Perez Medrano, Indhira
    Serrano Ruiz, Francisco Javier
    Casais Juanena, Luis Leonardo
    Pleguezuelo Navarro, Maria
    Naranjo Rodriguez, Antonio
    Villar Pastor, Carlos
    [J]. MEDICINA CLINICA, 2018, 150 (01): : 1 - 7
  • [50] Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: Next enemy to beat
    Castells, Antoni
    [J]. MEDICINA CLINICA, 2018, 150 (01): : 24 - 25