Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Interval cancer after colonoscopy in the Austrian National Screening Programme: influence of physician and patient factors
  1. Elisabeth Waldmann1,2,
  2. Daniela Penz1,2,
  3. Hana Šinkovec3,
  4. Georg Heinze3,
  5. Christoph Rinner4,
  6. Lena Jiricka1,3,
  7. Barbara Majcher1,2,
  8. Anna Hinterberger1,2,
  9. Michael Trauner1,
  10. Monika Ferlitsch1,2
  1. 1Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  2. 2Quality Assurance Working Group, Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
  3. 3Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Institute of Clinical Biometrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  4. 4Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Institute of Medical Information Management, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  1. Correspondence to Professor Monika Ferlitsch, Dept. of Internal Medicine III, Div. of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Vienna, Austria; monika.ferlitsch{at}meduniwien.ac.at

Abstract

Objective 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.

Design 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%.

Results 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).

Conclusion 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.

  • colonic adenomas
  • colorectal cancer screening
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The first sentence of the result section has the study period added.

  • Contributors EW: data management, writing of the manuscript, intellectual input; DP: critical revision of the manuscript, intellectual input; HS: Statistical analysis, critical revision of the manuscript; GH: Statistical analysis, critical revision of the manuscript; CR: Statistical analysis; LJ: Statistical analysis; BM: data management, intellectual input; AH: data management, intellectual input; MT: critical revision of the manuscript, intellectual input; MF: critical revision of the manuscript, intellectual input, data management.

  • Funding The quality certificate for screening colonoscopy (Qualitätszeritfikat Darmkrebsvorsorge) is supported by the Main Association of Statutory Insurance Institutions, The Austrian Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Austrian Cancer Aid.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval The Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Vienna approved the study (EK 1323/2015).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.