Awareness of surveillance recommendations among patients with colorectal adenomas

Patient Decisions Regarding Rescheduling Colonoscopies Postponed Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, elective colonoscopies were postponed in Ohio from 3/17/2020 to 5/1/2020. When the ban was lifted, canceled patients determined whether to reschedule their colonoscopy in the midst of the ongoing pandemic.

AIMS

We aim to determine whether demographic, colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and COVID-19 morbidity and mortality risk factors are associated with rescheduling of colonoscopies canceled by the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A medical record review of 420 participants ages 40-74 at a midwestern academic health system with elective colonoscopies canceled from 3/17/2020 to 5/1/2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic was performed.

RESULTS

More than half of participants (71.0%) rescheduled their colonoscopy within the next 8 months. Indication for colonoscopy being 'surveillance following adenoma', colonoscopy ordered by primary care provider rather than gastroenterologist, and dyslipidemia were independently associated with rescheduling colonoscopy. Higher body mass index, indication for colonoscopy being simply 'screening for CRC,' and stool testing were associated with not rescheduling. Diagnoses associated with colorectal cancer risk such as adenomas, personal or family history of colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease were not associated with rescheduling, nor were other comorbidities associated with increased COVID-19 severity. 4.5% (19/420) opted for stool fecal immunochemical test or Cologuard testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients rescheduled their colonoscopy despite the risk of virus exposure, suggesting that concern of missed colorectal cancer diagnosis outweighed coronavirus concerns. Patient trust in referring providers may be important for rescheduling, and colonoscopy indications were independently associated with rescheduling status.

Accuracy of Self-reported Colonic Polyps: Results from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial Study of Colonoscopy Utilization

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy follow-up recommendations depend on the presence or absence of polyps, and if found, their number, size, and histology. Patients may be responsible for conveying results between primary and specialty care or providing medical information to family members; thus, accurate reporting is critical. This analysis assessed the accuracy of self-reported colonoscopy findings.

METHODS

3,986 participants from the Study of Colonoscopy Utilization, an ancillary study nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial, were included. Self-reports of polyp and adenoma were compared to medical records, and measures of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Correlates of accurate self-report of polyp were assessed using logistic regression and weighted to account for study sampling.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of self-reported polyp findings were 88% and 85%, respectively, and for adenoma 11% and 99%, respectively. Among participants with a polyp, older age was associated with lower likelihood while polyp severity and non-white race were associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among participants without a polyp, having multiple colonoscopies was associated with lower likelihood while family history of colorectal cancer was associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among both groups, longer time since colonoscopy was associated with lower likelihood of accurate recall.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants recalled with reasonable accuracy whether they had a prior polyp; however, recall of histology, specifically adenoma, was much less accurate.

IMPACT

Identification of strategies to increase accurate self-report of colonic polyps are needed, particularly for patient-provider communications and patient reporting of results to family members.

Appropriateness and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: A 5-year follow-up population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are few prospective data about the use of surveillance colonoscopy and the risk of recurrent neoplasia in first degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We examined the use and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in a population-based screening program (Trentino, Italy) METHODS: 1252 FDRs have been included in this study. We calculated compliance (percentage of FDRs who underwent surveillance colonoscopy among those eligible), appropriateness of colonoscopy (appropriate if performed within 6 months of the guidelines recommended interval) and diagnostic yield for neoplasia. We compared these data with those of 765 individuals without a family history (FH) of CRC who underwent screening colonoscopy in the same period (controls).

RESULTS

Compliance and appropriateness were higher in FDRs than in controls (93.0% vs. 48.0%; p < 0.001; 59.6% vs. 18.8%; p < 0.0001, respectively). Younger age, female sex, FH of CRC and both non-advanced adenomas (nAA) and advanced adenomas (AA) at screening colonoscopy were predictors of appropriate surveillance. The cumulative incidence of nAA and AA was similar in FDRs and controls (31.7% and 4.9% in FDRs, including three invasive cancers; 32.4% and 5.8% in controls, respectively).

CONCLUSION

FH does not increase the risk of AA in a 5-year follow-up; appropriate surveillance practices in FDRs could be highly expected in an organized screening program.

Risk factors of nonadherence to colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy and its impact on clinical outcomes: a KASID multicenter study

BACKGROUND

An optimal surveillance program is important to prevent advanced colorectal neoplasm. In this context, we have evaluated the cumulative risk of high-risk adenoma (HRA) or colorectal cancer (CRC) according to surveillance interval time after polypectomy. In addition, we assessed risk factors for late surveillance to determine whether late surveillance can impact the risk of subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasm.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study involving 3562 subjects who had undergone removal of at least one adenoma at the index colonoscopy and who subsequently underwent a surveillance colonoscopy. The subjects were classified into an early, appropriate or late group depending on the timing of the surveillance colonoscopy, performed using modified U.S.

RESULTS

With 3% of the study population with LRA and HRA at the index colonoscopy going on to develop HRA or CRC, the estimated surveillance intervals calculated would be 6.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.42-7.10] years and 3.1 (95% CI 2.61-4.45) years, respectively. The predictors of late surveillance were female gender [odd ratio (OR) 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.40], having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.36-2.72) and HRA at index colonoscopy (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.19-1.59). The risk factors for subsequent HRA or CRC were late surveillance (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.03-1.74), male gender (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.54-2.95), having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.11-2.40) and HRA at index colonoscopy (OR 2.60; 95% CI 2.04-3.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Women, having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities and the presence of an HRA at the index colonoscopy were found to be independent risk factors for late surveillance colonoscopy. Late surveillance is significantly predictive of subsequent HRA or CRC.

Variable Quality and Readability of Patient-oriented Websites on Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is dependent on participation and subsequent adherence to surveillance. The internet increasingly is used for health information and is important to support decision making. We evaluated the accuracy, quality, and readability of online information on CRC screening and surveillance.

METHODS

A Website Accuracy Score and Polyp Score were developed, which awarded points for various aspects of CRC screening and surveillance. Websites also were evaluated using validated internet quality instruments (Global Quality Score, LIDA, and DISCERN), and reading scores. Two raters independently assessed the top 30 websites appearing on Google.com. Portals, duplicates, and news articles were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty websites were included. The mean website accuracy score was 26 of 44 (range, 9-41). Websites with the highest scores were www.cancer.org, www.bowelcanceraustralia.org, and www.uptodate.com. The median polyp score was 3 of 10. The median global quality score was 3 of 5 (range, 2-5). The median overall LIDA score was 74% and the median DISCERN score was 45, both indicating moderate quality. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 11th grade, rating the websites as difficult to read, 30% had a reading level acceptable for the general public (Flesch Reading Ease > 60). There was no correlation between the Google rank and the website accuracy score (r_s = -0.31; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked variation in quality and readability of websites on CRC screening. Most websites do not address polyp surveillance. The poor correlation between quality and Google ranking suggests that screenees will miss out on high-quality websites using standard search strategies.

Surveillance after colorectal polyp removal

Surveillance colonoscopy is aimed to reduce CRC incidence and mortality by removing adenomas and detecting CRC in early stage. However, colonoscopy is an invasive and expensive procedure and surveillance colonoscopy should be targeted at those who are most likely to benefit at the minimum frequency required to protect for cancer. Surveillance recommendations are based on guidelines, but the recommendations in those guidelines are based on moderate to low quality evidence and adherence to these guidelines is poor. As surveillance colonoscopy is one of the main indications for colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopies are filling colonoscopy lists, the current surveillance practice results in spending lots of money and capacity in a suboptimal way. Randomized controlled trials to compare surveillance intervals are not available. However, current evidence based on several case-control and cohort studies suggests there is no need for surveillance in patients with low-risk adenomas, i.e. 1-2 adenomas smaller than 10 mm. Patients with 3 or more adenomas or any adenoma larger than 10 mm seem to be the ones at real risk for metachronous adenomas or cancer. In those patients, surveillance colonoscopy is indicated at 3 years after baseline until ongoing studies will confirm the safety of enlarging this interval. Randomized controlled trials and experimental research are important in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence for the optimization of follow-up strategies for patients with adenomas and serrated polyps.

Appropriateness of endoscopic surveillance recommendations in organised colorectal cancer screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test

OBJECTIVES

To assess the appropriateness of recommendations for endoscopic surveillance in organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

DESIGN

74 Italian CRC screening programmes provided aggregated data on the recommendations given after FIT-positive colonoscopies in 2011 and 2013. Index colonoscopies were divided into negative/no adenoma and low- risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk adenomas. Postcolonoscopy recommendations included a return to screening (FIT after 2 years or 5 years), an endoscopic surveillance after 6 months or after 1 year, 3 years or 5 years, surgery or other. We assessed the deviation from the postcolonoscopy recommendations of the European Guidelines in 2011 and 2013 and the correlation between overuse of endoscopic surveillance in 2011 and the process indicators associated with the endoscopic workload in 2013.

RESULTS

49 704 postcolonoscopy recommendations were analysed. High-risk, intermediate-risk and low-risk adenomas, and no adenomas were reported in 5.9%, 19.3%, 15.3% and 51.5% of the cases, respectively. Endoscopic surveillance was inappropriately recommended in 67.4% and 7%, respectively, of cases with low-risk and no adenoma. Overall, 37% of all endoscopic surveillance recommendations were inappropriate (6696/17 860). Overuse of endoscopic surveillance was positively correlated with the extension of invitations (correlation coefficient (cc) 0.29; p value 0.03) and with compliance with post-FIT+ colonoscopy (cc 0.25; p value 0.05), while it was negatively correlated with total colonoscopy waiting times longer than 60 days (cc -0.26; p value 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In organised screening programmes, a high rate of inappropriate recommendations for patients with low risk or no adenomas occurs, affecting the demand for endoscopic surveillance by a third.

Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study

OBJECTIVE

To determine adherence to recommended surveillance intervals in clinical practice.

DESIGN

2997 successive patients with a first adenoma diagnosis (57% male, mean age 59 years) from 10 hospitals, who underwent colonoscopy between 1998 and 2002, were identified via Pathologisch Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief: Dutch Pathology Registry. Their medical records were reviewed until 1 December 2008. Time to and findings at first surveillance colonoscopy were assessed. A surveillance colonoscopy occurring within ± 3 months of a 1-year recommended interval and ± 6 months of a recommended interval of 2 years or longer was considered appropriate. The analysis was stratified by period per change in guideline (before 2002: 2-3 years for patients with 1 adenoma, annually otherwise; in 2002: 6 years for 1-2 adenomas, 3 years otherwise). We also assessed differences in adenoma and colorectal cancer recurrence rates by surveillance timing.

RESULTS

Surveillance was inappropriate in 76% and 89% of patients diagnosed before 2002 and in 2002, respectively. Patients eligible under the pre-2002 guideline mainly received surveillance too late or were absent (57% of cases). For patients eligible under the 2002 guideline surveillance occurred mainly too early (48%). The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance was higher in patients with delayed surveillance compared with those with too early or appropriate timed surveillance (8% vs 4-5%, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

There is much room for improving surveillance practice. Less than 25% of patients with adenoma receive appropriate surveillance. Such practice seriously hampers the effectiveness and efficiency of surveillance, as too early surveillance poses a considerable burden on available resources while delayed surveillance is associated with an increased rate of advanced adenoma and especially colorectal cancer.

Knowledge of Polyp History and Recommended Follow-Up Among a Predominately African American Patient Population and the Impact of Patient Navigation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal screening (CRS) rates in minority and uninsured populations have increased through patient navigation (PN) interventions. However, patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations has not been described in an African American (AA) population or following PN. Our objectives were to determine patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations within an AA patient population and to compare post-colonoscopy knowledge among patients who received either PN or usual care.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study of patients who completed a screening colonoscopy in 2014. A semi-structured telephone survey was completed by 96 participants (69 % AA, 78 % female, and mean age 63 years). The survey assessed patient recall of polyp results and follow-up recommendations. Responses were compared with the medical record.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients surveyed (response rate, 68 %), 83 % accurately reported if polyps were detected and 66 % accurately reported their recommended follow-up. The identification of adenomatous polyps on colonoscopy was a predictor of accurate recall of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations. Uninsured patients who completed PN (18 of 96) were more likely to accurately report polyp results (100 vs. 80 %; P = 0.036), but the rates of accurate follow-up recall were not statistically significant (44 vs. 71 %; P = 0.053) when compared to usual care patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In an AA population, post-colonoscopy polyp recall rates were similar to those described in white populations. Uninsured patients who completed PN were more likely than insured usual care patients to accurately report the presence of polyps on colonoscopy.

Adherence to physician recommendations for surveillance in opportunistic colorectal cancer screening: the necessity of organized surveillance

Background

Limited evidence exists on the utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. We assessed adherence to physician recommendations for surveillance in opportunistic CRC screening in Germany.

Methods

A follow-up study of screening colonoscopy participants in 2007-2009 in Saarland, Germany, was conducted using health insurance claims data. Utilization of additional colonoscopies through to 2011 was ascertained. Adherence to surveillance intervals of 3, 6, 12 and 36 months, defined as having had colonoscopy at 2.5 to 4, 5 to 8, 10.5 to 16 and 33 to 48 months, respectively (i.e., tolerating a delay of 33% of each interval) was assessed. Potential predictors of non-adherence were investigated using logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 20,058 screening colonoscopy participants were included in the study. Of those with recommended surveillance intervals of 3, 6, 12 and 36 months, 46.5% (95%-confidence interval [CI]: 37.3-55.7%), 38.5% (95%-CI: 29.6-47.3%), 25.4% (95%-CI: 21.2-29.6%) and 28.0% (95%-CI: 25.5-30.5%), respectively, had a subsequent colonoscopy within the specified margins. Old age, longer recommended surveillance interval, not having had polypectomy at screening and negative colonoscopy were statistically significant predictors of non-adherence.

Conclusion

This study suggests frequent non-adherence to physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Increased efforts to improve adherence, including introduction of more elements of an organized screening program, seem necessary to assure a high-quality CRC screening process.

Patients do not recall important details about polyps, required for colorectal cancer prevention

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines recommend that the age of initiation and frequency of colorectal cancer screening or surveillance be based on patients' personal and family histories of colorectal neoplasia. However, it is not clear whether patients accurately recall results from their colonoscopy examinations or features of specific polyps.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2011, a 35-question survey was given to outpatients at the Digestive Disease Institute at the Cleveland Clinic who had previously undergone colonoscopy there. We collected responses from 233 participants (mean age, 59 y; 49% male); they provided demographic information, along with responses to questions on past colonoscopies, personal and family history of colorectal neoplasia, detection of polyps by colonoscopy, and number and other key features of polyps detected. Patient responses were compared with medical records.

RESULTS

Of the patients surveyed, 82% correctly recalled the presence or absence of polyp(s). Of the 118 who correctly reported having polyps, 61% correctly recalled the number, 26% recalled the size, and 6%-33% recalled features of polyp pathology. Only 8% of individuals correctly recalled all 3 key features of polyps (size, number, and pathology). The patients' age when they underwent colonoscopy, current age, sex, education, or method by which they received their colonoscopy results did not significantly affect the accuracy with which they recalled the presence or key features of polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

Eighty-two percent of patients examined by colonoscopy correctly recalled whether or not they had polyp(s). However, most patients did not recall key details about their polyps (number, size, or pathology features) required to establish appropriate screening and surveillance intervals. New tools are needed to ensure that patients understand the importance of their colonoscopy findings and improve their recall accuracy.

Quality improvement in gastroenterology clinical practice

An emphasis on quality improvement (QI) is vital to the cost-effective provision of evidence-based health care. QI projects in gastroenterology have typically focused on endoscopy to minimize or eliminate procedure-related complications or errors. However, a significant component of gastroenterology care is based on the management of chronic disease. Patients with chronic diseases are seen in many different outpatient practices in the community and academia. In an attempt to ensure that every patient receives high-quality care, major gastrointestinal societies have published guidelines on the management of common gastrointestinal complaints. However, adherence to these guidelines varies. We discuss common outpatient gastrointestinal illnesses with established guidelines for management that could benefit from active QI projects; these would ensure a consistently high standard of care for every patient.