Underuse and Overuse of Colonoscopy for Repeat Screening and Surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration

Risk of colorectal neoplasia after removal of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps: a comprehensive evaluation of risk factors and surveillance use

BACKGROUND

Surveillance colonoscopy after polyp removal is recommended to prevent subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC). It is known that advanced adenomas have a substantially higher risk than non-advanced ones, but optimal intervals for surveillance remain unclear.

DESIGN

We prospectively followed 156 699 participants who had undergone a colonoscopy from 2007 to 2017 in a large integrated healthcare system. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression we estimated the subsequent risk of CRC and high-risk polyps, respectively, according to index colonoscopy polyps, colonoscopy quality measures, patient characteristics and the use of surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, we documented 309 CRC and 3053 high-risk polyp cases. Compared with participants with no polyps at index colonoscopy, those with high-risk adenomas and high-risk serrated polyps had a consistently higher risk of CRC during follow-up, with the highest risk observed at 3 years after polypectomy (multivariable HR 5.44 (95% CI 3.56 to 8.29) and 8.35 (95% CI 4.20 to 16.59), respectively). Recurrence of high-risk polyps showed a similar risk distribution. The use of surveillance colonoscopy was associated with lower risk of CRC, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98) among patients with high-risk polyps and 0.57 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.92) among low-risk polyps. Among 1548 patients who had high-risk polyps at both index and surveillance colonoscopies, 65% had their index polyps in the proximal colon and 30% had index and interval polyps in the same segments.

CONCLUSION

Patients with high-risk polyp findings were at higher risk of subsequent CRC and high-risk polyps and may benefit from early surveillance within 3 years. The subsite distribution of the index and recurrent high-risk polyps suggests the contribution of incomplete resection and missed lesions to the development of interval neoplasia.

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification.

METHODS

Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.

RESULTS

Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively).

DISCUSSION

A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

Effect of alverine citrate plus simethicone in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Colonoscopy is the standard procedure for screening, and surveillance of colorectal cancer, including the treatment for colonic lesions. Colonic spasm is an important problem from colonoscopy that affects both surgeons and patients. The spasm also might be the cause of longer cecal intubation time, difficulty of the procedure, and increased pain. Previous reports indicated that antispasmodic agents can decrease such symptoms. Therefore, we conducted this study to investigate the cecal intubation time of antispasmodic agents. A single blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted from 01/11/2020 to 31/08/2021. One hundred four patients were allocated to antispasmodic agent group and control group, in 1:1 ratio. The efficacy of median (range) cecal intubation time showed similar results of 5 (2, 14) and 5 (2, 15) minutes with no statistically significant difference. The mean scores of all domains i.e., pain, spasm, cleanliness, and difficulty were better in the antispasmodic agent group about 2.6 (1.4), 1.8 (0.8), 2.4 (0.9), and 2.0 (0.9), respectively, than control group but there were spasm and cleanliness showed statistically significant difference. Moreover, the satisfaction scores showed better efficacy in decreased spasm, decreased difficulty, and increased cleanliness than control group. Prescribing of antispasmodic drugs before colonoscopy might be the choice of treatment for the patients. The antispasmodic drugs will be beneficial to both of the patient and the doctor.

Derivation and validation of a nomogram incorporating modifiable lifestyle factors to predict development of colorectal adenomas after negative index colonoscopy

This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify baseline patient characteristics involving modifiable lifestyle factors that are associated with the development of colorectal adenomas, and establish and validate a nomogram for risk predictions among high-risk populations with negative index colonoscopy. A total of 83,076 participants who underwent an index colonoscopy at the Tianjin Union Medical Center between 2004 and 2019 were collected. According to meticulous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 249 subjects were enrolled and categorized into the primary and validation cohorts. Based on the primary cohort, we utilized the LASSO-Cox regression and the univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazards (Cox-PH) regression parallelly to select variables, and incorporated selected variables into two nomogram models established using the multivariate Cox-PH regression. Comparison of the Akaike information criterion and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the two models demonstrated that the nomogram model constituted by four covariates retained by the LASSO-Cox regression, including baseline age, body mass index, physical activity and family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) in first-degree relatives, performed better at predicting adenoma-free survival probabilities. Further validation including the concordance index, calibration plots, decision curve analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves also revealed good predictive accuracy, discriminating ability, clinical utility and risk stratification capacity of the nomogram model. Our nomogram will assist high-risk individuals with negative index colonoscopy to prevent colorectal adenoma occurrence and CRC morbidity with improved cost-effectiveness.

Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program

Background and study aims The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on adherence to surveillance protocols for screening-positive individuals. We evaluated adherence in the Danish population-based screening program and estimated the volume of diagnostic resources required to achieve this adherence. Patients and methods In this register- and population-based study, we included individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening from 2014 to 2017 and followed them until mid-2022. All endoscopic, imaging, and surgical procedures performed at public and private hospitals were identified. Adherence to national protocols was reported in terms of proportions and timeliness. Use of diagnostic and surveillance procedures was estimated during a 4-year post-screening period. Results Among 82,221 individuals with a positive FIT test, 84% had a baseline colonoscopy within 1 month. After removal of intermediate or high-risk adenomas, 12% and 6%, respectively, did not have any follow-up. Only ~50% had timely surveillance. Approximately 10% to 20%, depending on their referral diagnosis, did not have a second surveillance colonoscopy. In addition, 12% with a negative colonoscopy had a second colonoscopy within 4 years. Conclusions High adherence to baseline colonoscopy after positive FIT-screening is followed by lower adherence throughout the adenoma surveillance program. Better adherence to the guidelines could potentially improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the screening program.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Receipt Does Not Differ by 10-Year Mortality Risk Among Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Health status and life expectancy are important considerations for assessing potential benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, particularly among older adults.

METHODS

We examined receipt of past-year CRC screening according to predicted 10-year mortality risk among 25,888 community-dwelling adults aged 65-84 years who were not up-to-date with screening in the nationwide National Health Interview Survey. Ten-year mortality risk was estimated using a validated index; from the lowest to highest quintiles of the index, risk was 12%, 24%, 39%, 58%, and 79%, respectively. We also examined the proportion of screening performed among adults with life expectancy <10 years.

RESULTS

The prevalence of past-year CRC screening was 39.5%, 40.6%, 38.7%, 36.4%, and 35.4%, from the lowest to highest quintile of 10-year mortality risk. Odds of CRC screening did not differ between adults in the lowest vs highest quintile (adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.20). One-quarter (27.9%) of past-year CRC screening occurred in adults with life expectancy <10 years, and more than half (50.7%) of adults aged 75-84 years had 10-year mortality risk ≥50% at the time of screening. In an exploratory analysis, invasive but not noninvasive screening increased as 10-year mortality risk increased ( P < 0.05) among adults aged 70-79 years.

DISCUSSION

Past-year CRC screening does not differ by predicted 10-year mortality risk. An age-based approach to CRC screening results in underscreening of older, healthier adults and overscreening of younger adults with chronic conditions. Personalized screening with incorporation of individual life expectancy may increase the value of CRC screening programs.

Veterans Health Administration enrollees' choice of care setting relates to the expansion of care options: Evidence from screening colonoscopies before and after the MISSION Act

OBJECTIVE

To estimate whether those enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were less likely to use VHA-delivered colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies after the MISSION Act.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Secondary data were collected on VHA-enrolled Veterans from FY2017-FY2021.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cross-sectional study measured the volume and share of screening colonoscopies that were VHA-delivered over time and by drive time eligibility-defined as living more than 60 min away from the nearest VHA specialty-care clinic. We used a multivariable logistic regression to adjust for patient and facility factors.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted for VHA enrollees (n = 773,766) who underwent a screening colonoscopy either performed or purchased by the VHA from FY2017-FY2021.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In the 9 months after the implementation of the MISSION Act, and before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the average monthly VHA-share of screening colonoscopies decreased by 3 percentage points (pp; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-4 to -2 pp]) for the non-drive time eligible group and it decreased by 16 pp (95% CI = [-22 to -9 pp]) for the drive time eligible group. The total number of screening colonoscopies did not significantly change in either group during this time period. After adjusting for patient characteristics, a linear time trend, and parent facility fixed effects, implementation of the MISSION Act was associated with a reduction in the probability of a VHA-delivered screening colonoscopy (average marginal effect [AME]: -2.5 pp; 95% CI = [-5.1 to 0.0 pp]) for the non-drive time eligible group. The drive time eligible group (AME: -9.4 pp; 95% CI = [-13.2 to -5.5 pp]) experienced a larger change.

CONCLUSIONS

The VHA-share of screening colonoscopies among VHA enrollees fell in the 9 months immediately after the passage of the MISSION Act. This decline was larger for VHA enrollees who were targeted for eligibility due to a longer drive time. These results suggest that the MISSION Act led to more VHA-purchased care among targeted VHA enrollees, though it is unclear whether total utilization increased.

Appropriateness of recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy - a comparison of adherence to the 2012 and 2020 USMSTF guidelines

Background

Screening colonoscopy detects precancerous polyps, which when resected, prevents colon cancer. Recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy are based on the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force guidelines (USMSTF).

Aim

to examine provider recommendations based on 2012 and 2020 USMSTF guidelines.

Methods

A prospective analysis was performed to examine provider recommendations for index screening and surveillance colonoscopy from March 2022 to January 2023. Procedures with unknown histology or unsatisfactory bowel preparation were excluded. We recorded polyp morphology, histology, and subsequent recommendations made by endoscopists, to compare to the USMSTF guidelines.

Results

241 patients were included, with 371 endoscopies reviewed. For index screening colonoscopies, 86%, performed between 2012 and 2020, adhered to 2012 guidelines, while 71%, performed after 2020, adhered to the 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, 62% from 2012 and 2020, and 50% after 2020, adhered to the 2012 and 2020 guidelines, respectively (P < 0.001). For polyp types, recommendations after index colonoscopies showed low-risk adenoma (LRA) had 88% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 73% adherence to 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, LRA had 73% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 42% adherence to 2020 guidelines (P < 0.001). Recommendations after index colonoscopy showed high-risk adenoma (HRA) had 79% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 63% adherence to 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, HRA had 88% adherence to the 2012 guidelines versus 69% adherence to 2020 guidelines (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Adherence declined for the introduction of 2020 guidelines and was poorer after 2nd surveillance exams. Increasing the evidence for interval recommendations may increase guideline adherence.

Use of surveillance colonoscopy among individuals with removal of high-risk polyps according to the US Multi-Society Task Force recommendations

BACKGROUND

Individuals with colorectal polypectomy are recommended to undergo surveillance colonoscopies at certain intervals to prevent subsequent colorectal cancer. Use of postpolypectomy surveillance according to the 2006 US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) recommendations in an integrated health care system was investigated.

METHODS

Use of surveillance colonoscopies was prospectively assessed among 3691 patients with removal of high-risk polyps at a screening colonoscopy during 2007-2012 in the Mass General Brigham Colonoscopy Cohort. With the follow-up up to 2017, the compliance with, overuse, and underuse of postpolypectomy surveillance according to the 2006 USMSTF recommendations was assessed. Surveillance use according to demographic factors was also investigated.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 4.4 years (5th percentile, 95th percentile, 1.0, 9.9) 2360 (64%) patients had undergone a surveillance colonoscopy, among whom 758 (21%) were considered compliant with the USMSTF recommendations. A substantial underuse of surveillance colonoscopies of 62% was observed. Older age and lower income were associated with a higher incidence of underuse, whereas having a family history of colorectal cancer were associated with lower incidence of underuse. Overuse of surveillance colonoscopies was present in 17% of patients but showed no significant associations with demographic factors.

CONCLUSION

Substantial underuse of surveillance in patients with high-risk polyps was observed, particularly those with low income and older age. Efforts are needed to improve delivery and use of surveillance colonoscopy.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends follow-up surveillance colonoscopy after polyp removal in the bowel, with intervals depending on the most severe findings. Adherence to surveillance recommendations in a large study with up to 10 years of follow-up among patients with high-risk polyps was investigated. Only 21% of patients adhered to the surveillance recommendations, whereas 62% showed delayed or no use of surveillance. Findings highlight the need for improved use of surveillance colonoscopy among patients at high risk of colorectal cancer.

Utility of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year: a patient-level analysis

Patients undergo colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening and for the evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms. Analysis of large administrative databases has demonstrated that some patients undergo repeat colonoscopies at intervals inconsistent with current recommendations, but these studies do not provide patient-level details. The medical records of 110 patients undergoing repeat colonoscopies within 1 year of their index colonoscopies at a tertiary care hospital-based endoscopy center were retrospectively reviewed to determine patient demographics, gastrointestinal symptoms, and endoscopic findings. Thirty-five patients had poor bowel preparations, and 11 patients had a history of colorectal cancer. Thirty-four patients had polyps identified during their index colonoscopies, and 28 patients had no polyps identified during their index colonoscopies. Eleven patients in the nonpolyp group had new endoscopic findings identified during the repeat colonoscopies. Twenty patients who had polyps identified on their index colonoscopies had 44 polyps identified on repeat colonoscopies. Repeat colonoscopies within 1 year occurred relatively infrequently in this endoscopy center. Indications included poor bowel preparation with incomplete studies, colonic polyps with incomplete resection, multiple polyps resulting in the possibility of missed polyps, and new gastrointestinal symptoms.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Compliance with follow-up guidelines after high-risk colorectal polyp removal: a population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After high-risk colorectal adenoma removal, colorectal cancer risk remains higher than that in the general population. Depending on polyp characteristics, a 3-month or 3-year follow-up colonoscopy is recommended, and clear follow-up instructions must be given to the patient. Our primary aim was to evaluate compliance with French follow-up recommendations. Second, we evaluated the impact of how the information was given and if patients actually underwent their control colonoscopy according to the instructions given.

METHODS

We collected data from the Burgundy polyp population-based registry and medical records from the endoscopy centers of the area. Between June 30, 2014 and July 1, 2015, 405 patients were included in this study.

RESULTS

Written follow-up instructions were provided to 345 patients (85.2%), and 184 of them (53.3%) complied with guidelines. For 29.9% the interval to follow-up colonoscopy was longer than recommended, and for 6.4% the interval was shorter. Among the 303 patients who had clear follow-up instructions, 42.2% had their control colonoscopy and 83.6% respected the stipulated interval. Follow-up instructions were found in the colonoscopy report in at least 49% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with follow-up guidelines was poor: Inappropriate intervals were often longer than recommended. Patients with written follow-up instructions and those who underwent follow-up colonoscopy mostly followed these instructions. Ensuring compliance with guidelines and giving written instructions to patients should be primary goals to achieve effective follow-up. Gastroenterologist training should be improved in this way.

Prevalence of Forceps Polypectomy of Nondiminutive Polyps Is Substantial But Modifiable

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of forceps for removal of nondiminutive polyps is associated with incomplete resection compared with snare polypectomy. However, few studies have characterized the frequency of forceps polypectomy for nondiminutive polyps or identified strategies to improve this practice. To address this gap, we estimated the prevalence and predictors of forceps polypectomy in clinical practice and examined the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to reduce inappropriate forceps polypectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all colonoscopies with polypectomies performed at 2 U.S. health systems between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. We used a mixed-effects logistic regression model to examine the effect of a multicomponent intervention, including provider education and a financial incentive, to reduce inappropriate forceps polypectomy, defined as use of forceps polypectomy for polyps ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 9968 colonoscopies with 25,534 polypectomies were performed by 42 gastroenterologists during the study period. Overall, 8.5% (n = 2176) of polyps were removed with inappropriate forceps polypectomy. Inappropriate forceps polypectomy significantly decreased after the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.39), from 11.4% (n = 1539) to 5.3% (n = 637). Predictors of inappropriate forceps polypectomy included inadequate bowel prep (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.47), polyps in the right colon (vs left: OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.51), and number of polyps removed (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97). Inappropriate forceps polypectomy also varied by gastroenterologist (median OR, 3.43). In a post hoc analysis, the proportion of polyps >2 mm removed with forceps decreased from 50.0% before the intervention to 43.0% after it (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate forceps polypectomy is common but modifiable. The proportion of nondiminutive polyps removed with forceps polypectomy should be considered as a quality measure.

An Estimate of the US Rate of Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).

RESULTS

A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed.

Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year.

RESULTS

There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.

Impact of Community Referral on Colonoscopy Quality Metrics in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center

INTRODUCTION

The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 expands the number of options veterans have to ensure timely access to high-quality care. There are minimal data currently available analyzing the impact and quality of colonoscopy metrics in veterans receiving procedures within the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) vs community settings.

METHODS

All patients at our academic VA medical center who were referred to a community care colonoscopy (CCC) for positive fecal immunochemical testing, colorectal cancer screening, and adenoma surveillance from 2015 to 2018 were identified and matched for sex, age, and year of procedure to patients referred for a VA-based colonoscopy (VAC). Metrics measured included time to procedure measured in days, adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy, sessile serrated polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, bowel preparation quality, and compliance with guideline recommendations for surveillance. Patient comorbidities were also recorded. Variable associations with adenoma detection and compliance with surveillance guidelines were analyzed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 235 veterans (mean age, 64.6 years, and 95.7% male) underwent a CCC and had an appropriately matched VAC. ADR in the community was 36.9% compared with 62.6% for the VAC group (P < 0.0001). The mean number of adenomas per procedure in the community was 0.77 compared with 1.83 per VAC (P < 0.0001). CCC AADR was 8.9% compared with 18.3% for VAC (P = 0.003). The cecal intubation rate for community colonoscopies was 90.6% compared with 95.3% for VA colonoscopies (P = 0.047). Community care compliance with surveillance guidelines was 74.9% compared with 93.3% for VA (P < 0.0001). This nonconformity was primarily due to recommending a shorter interval follow-up in the CCC group (15.3%) compared with the VAC group (5.5%) (P = 0.0012). The mean time to procedure was 58.4 days (±33.7) for CCC compared with 83.8 days (±38.6) for VAC (P < 0.0001). In multivariate regression, CCC was associated with lower ADR (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.63) and lower compliance with surveillance guidelines (odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.45) (P < 0.0001 for both).

DISCUSSION

Time to colonoscopy was significantly shorter for CCC compared with VAC. However, compared with VA colonoscopies, there was significantly lower ADR, AADR, and surveillance guideline compliance for services rendered by community providers. This impact on quality of care should be further studied to ensure that colonoscopy quality standards for veterans are not compromised by the process of care and site of care.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.

Real-World National Colonoscopy Volume in Korea: A Nationwide Population-Based Study over 12 Years

Background/Aims

Little is known about the national colonoscopy volume in Asian countries. This study aimed to assess the national colonoscopy volume in Korea over a 12-year period on the basis of a nationwide population-based database.

Methods

We conducted a population-based study for colonoscopy claims (14,511,158 colonoscopies performed on 13,219,781 patients) on the basis of the Korean National Health Insurance Service database from 2002 to 2013. The 12-year national colonoscopy burden was analyzed according to patient age, patient sex, and healthcare facility type.

Results

The overall volume of colonoscopy increased 8-fold over the 12-year period. The annual colonoscopic polypectomy rate significantly increased in all patient sex and age groups over the 12-years period (all p<0.001). The yearly colonoscopic polypectomy rate for men was significantly increased compared with that for women (2.3% vs 1.7%, p<0.001) and for the screening-age group compared with that for the young-age group (2.0% vs 1.6%, p<0.001). The yearly colonoscopic polypectomy rate relative to the total colonoscopy volume significantly increased in primary, secondary, and tertiary facilities by 2.4%, 1.9%, and 1.4% during the 12-year period (all p<0.001). In addition, the annual colonoscopy volume covered by high-volume facilities significantly increased by 1.8% in primary healthcare facilities over the 12-year period (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Healthcare resources should be prioritized to allow adequate colonoscopic capacity, especially for men, individuals in the screening-age group, and at primary healthcare facilities. Cost-effective strategies to improve the quality of colonoscopy may focus on primary healthcare facilities and high-volume facilities in Korea.

Gastroenterology visitation and reminders predict surveillance uptake for patients with adenomas with high-risk features

Individuals diagnosed with colorectal adenomas with high-risk features during screening colonoscopy have increased risk for the development of subsequent adenomas and colorectal cancer. While US guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years in this high-risk population, surveillance uptake is suboptimal. To inform future interventions to improve surveillance uptake, we sought to assess surveillance rates and identify facilitators of uptake in a large integrated health system. We utilized a cohort of patients with a diagnosis of ≥ 1 tubular adenoma (TA) with high-risk features (TA ≥ 1 cm, TA with villous features, TA with high-grade dysplasia, or ≥ 3 TA of any size) on colonoscopy between 2013 and 2016. Surveillance colonoscopy completion within 3.5 years of diagnosis of an adenoma with high-risk features was our primary outcome. We evaluated surveillance uptake over time and utilized logistic regression to detect factors associated with completion of surveillance colonoscopy. The final cohort was comprised of 405 patients. 172 (42.5%) patients successfully completed surveillance colonoscopy by 3.5 years. Use of a patient reminder (telephone, electronic message, or letter) for due surveillance (adjusted odds = 1.9; 95%CI = 1.2-2.8) and having ≥ 1 gastroenterology (GI) visit after diagnosis of an adenoma with high-risk features (adjusted odds = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.6-4.2) significantly predicted surveillance colonoscopy completion at 3.5 years. For patients diagnosed with adenomas with high-risk features, surveillance colonoscopy uptake is suboptimal and frequently occurs after the 3-year surveillance recommendation. Patient reminders and visitation with GI after index colonoscopy are associated with timely surveillance completion. Our findings highlight potential health system interventions to increase timely surveillance uptake for patients diagnosed with adenomas with high-risk features.

Follow-up of 3 Million Persons Undergoing Colonoscopy in Germany: Utilization of Repeat Colonoscopies and Polypectomies Within 10 Years

INTRODUCTION

Given the sparsity of longitudinal studies on colonoscopy use, we quantified utilization of repeat colonoscopy within 10 years and the proportion of persons with polypectomies at first repeat colonoscopy using a large German claims database.

METHODS

Based on the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database, we identified persons who underwent colonoscopy between 2006 and 2015 (index colonoscopy) and assessed colonoscopies and polypectomies during follow-up. We defined 3 subcohorts based on available procedure/diagnosis codes at index colonoscopy: persons with snare polypectomy, which is reimbursable for lesions ≥5 mm in size (cohort 1), with a forceps polypectomy (cohort 2), and without such procedures/diagnoses (cohort 3). We stratified all analyses by diagnostic vs screening index colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, we included 3,076,657 persons (cohort 1-3: 15%, 13%, 72%). Among persons with screening index colonoscopy (30%), the proportions with a repeat colonoscopy within 10 years in cohorts 1, 2, and 3 were 78%, 66%, and 43%, respectively, and a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy was performed in 27%, 17%, and 12%, respectively. In cohort 1, 32% of persons with a (first) repeat colonoscopy after 9 years had a snare polypectomy (after 3 years: 25%). Among persons with diagnostic index colonoscopies, 80%, 78%, and 65% had a repeat colonoscopy, and 27%, 17%, and 10% had a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Our study suggests substantial underuse of repeat colonoscopy among persons with previous snare polypectomy and overuse among lower risk groups. One-quarter of persons with a snare polypectomy at baseline had another snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy.

State of the Science on Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy and How to Achieve Them

Colonoscopy is a safe and effective tool, but operator dependent. Room for improvement in the quality of colonoscopy is the impetus for the development and measurement of colonoscopy quality indicators and the focus of many efforts to improve colonoscopy quality indicator prevention and control in provider practices and health systems. We present the preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy. Every provider and practice must make a commitment to performing high-quality colonoscopy and implement and monitor quality metrics. There are a variety of tools available to assist in improving quality indicators that range from distal attachment devices to education and feedback. Although technology can help, it is not a substitute for proper technique. The commitment also requires provider feedback through audits and report cards. The impact of these efforts on patient outcomes is an important area of further research.

What Is Organized Screening and What Is Its Value?

Most screening in the United States occurs in an opportunistic fashion, although organized screening occurs in some integrated health care systems. Organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening consists of an explicit screening policy, defined target population, implementation team, health care team for clinical care delivery, quality assurance infrastructure, and method for identifying cancer outcomes. Implementation of an organized screening program offers opportunities to systematically assess the success of the program and develop interventions to address identified gaps in an effort to optimize CRC outcomes. There is evidence of that organized screening is associated with improvements in screening participation and CRC mortality.

Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer Tied to Advanced Colorectal Polyps: An Untapped Opportunity to Screen First-Degree Relatives and Decrease Cancer Burden

Advanced adenomas represent a subset of colorectal polyps that are known to confer an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia to the affected individual and their first-degree relatives (FDRs). Accordingly, professional guidelines suggest earlier and more intensive screening for FDRs of those with advanced adenomas similar to FDRs of those with colorectal cancer (CRC). Although the risk to family members is less clear among patients with advanced serrated polyps, they are often considered in the same category. Unfortunately, there is a growing concern that patients, endoscopists, and primary care providers are unaware of the familial risk associated with these polyps, leaving a wide gap in screening these high-risk individuals. Herein, we propose a standardized language around advanced colorectal polyps and present a detailed review of the literature on associated familial risk. We outline the challenges to implementing the current screening recommendations and suggest approaches to overcome these limitations, including a proposed new colonoscopy quality metric to capture communication of familial CRC risk. Improving screening in these high-risk groups has the potential to substantially reduce the burden of CRC.

Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death After Adenoma Removal in a Large, Community-based Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings.

METHODS

Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18).

CONCLUSIONS

With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas.

Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarise the evidence on the prevalence of colorectal adenomas and cancers at a follow-up screening colonoscopy after negative index colonoscopy, stratified by interval between examinations and by sex.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Two investigators independently extracted characteristics and results of identified studies and performed standardised quality ratings.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies assessing the outcome of a follow-up colonoscopy among participants at average risk for colorectal cancer with a negative previous colonoscopy (no adenomas).

RESULTS

28 studies were identified, including 22 cohort studies, five cross sectional studies, and one case-control study. Findings for an interval between colonoscopies of one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years were reported by 17, 16, and three studies, respectively. Summary estimates of prevalences of any neoplasm were 20.7% (95% confidence interval 15.8% to 25.5%), 23.0% (18.0% to 28.0%), and 21.9% (14.9% to 29.0%) for one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years between colonoscopies. Corresponding summary estimates of prevalences of any advanced neoplasm were 2.8% (2.0% to 3.7%), 3.2% (2.2% to 4.1%), and 7.0% (5.3% to 8.7%). Seven studies also reported findings stratified by sex. Summary estimates stratified by interval and sex were consistently higher for men than for women.

CONCLUSIONS

Although detection of any neoplasms was observed in more than 20% of participants within five years of a negative screening colonoscopy, detection of advanced neoplasms within 10 years was rare. Our findings suggest that 10 year intervals for colonoscopy screening after a negative colonoscopy, as currently recommended, may be adequate, but more studies are needed to strengthen the empirical basis for pertinent recommendations and to investigate even longer intervals.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42019127842.

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer are at risk for colorectal cancer, but may not be up to date with colorectal cancer screening. We sought to determine whether a one-time recommendation about needing colorectal cancer screening using patient navigation (PN) was better than just receiving the recommendation only.

METHODS

Participants were FDRs of patients with Lynch syndrome-negative colorectal cancer from participating Ohio hospitals. FDRs from 259 families were randomized to a website intervention (528 individuals), which included a survey and personal colorectal cancer screening recommendation, while those from 254 families were randomized to the website plus telephonic PN intervention (515 individuals). Primary outcome was adherence to the personal screening recommendation (to get screened or not to get screened) received from the website. Secondary outcomes examined who benefited from adding PN.

RESULTS

At the end of the 14-month follow-up, 78.6% of participants were adherent to their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening with adherence similar between arms (P = 0.14). Among those who received a recommendation to have a colonoscopy immediately, the website plus PN intervention significantly increased the odds of receiving screening, compared with the website intervention (OR: 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-5.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of PN to a website intervention did not improve adherence to a colorectal cancer screening recommendation overall; however, the addition of PN was more effective in increasing adherence among FDRs who needed screening immediately.

IMPACT

These findings provide important information as to when the additional costs of PN are needed to assure colorectal cancer screening among those at high risk for colorectal cancer.

Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Guideline Adherence of Surveillance Recommendations for Colonoscopy After Polypectomy

Background: Surveillance colonoscopy is required in patients with polyps due to an elevated colorectal cancer (CRC) risk; however, studies suggest substantial overuse and underuse of surveillance colonoscopy. The goal of this study was to characterize guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations after implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR)-based Colonoscopy Pathology Reporting and Clinical Decision Support System (CoRS). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net healthcare system before (n=1,822) and after (n=1,320) implementation of CoRS in December 2013. Recommendations were classified as guideline-adherent or nonadherent according to the US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC. We defined surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations as potential overuse and underuse, respectively. We used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to identify correlates of guideline-adherent recommendations. Results: The proportion of guideline-adherent surveillance recommendations was significantly higher post-CoRS than pre-CoRS (84.6% vs 77.4%; P<.001), with fewer recommendations for potential overuse and underuse. In the post-CoRS period, CoRS was used for 89.8% of cases and, compared with cases for which it was not used, was associated with a higher proportion of guideline-adherent recommendations (87.0% vs 63.4%; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23-1.42). In multivariable analysis, surveillance recommendations were also more likely to be guideline-adherent in patients with adenomas but less likely among those with fair bowel preparation and those with family history of CRC. Of 203 nonadherent recommendations, 70.4% were considered potential overuse, 20.2% potential underuse, and 9.4% were not provided surveillance recommendations. Conclusions: An EMR-based CoRS was widely used and significantly improved guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations.

Over-Utilization of Repeat Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Non-dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Quality Registry Study

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend that patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) undergo surveillance endoscopy every 3-5 years. Using a national registry, we assessed compliance to recommended surveillance intervals in patients with NDBE and identified factors associated with compliance.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry. Data abstracted include procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy/pathology results, and recommendations for future endoscopy. Patients with an indication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, with non-dysplastic intestinal metaplasia on pathological examination, were included. Compliance was defined as a recommendation to undergo subsequent endoscopy between 3 and 5 years. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with compliance.

RESULTS

Of 786,712 endoscopies assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) endoscopies in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age 61.3 years, 60.4% men, 90.2% white, mean BE length was 2.3 cm). Most cases were performed by Gastroenterologists (92.3%) with propofol (78.7%). A total of 29,978 procedures (55.8%) resulted in pathology-confirmed BE. Among procedures with NDBE (n = 25,945), 29.9% were noncompliant with the 3-year threshold; most (26.9%) recommended surveillance at 1- to 2-year intervals. Patient factors such as extremes of age, black race, geographic region, type of sedation, and increasing BE length were associated with noncompliance.

DISCUSSION

Approximately 30% of patients with NDBE are recommended to undergo surveillance endoscopy too soon. Patient factors associated with inappropriate utilization include extremes of age, black race, and increasing BE length. Compliance with appropriate endoscopic follow-up as a quality measure in BE is poor.

Surveillance colonoscopies frequently booked earlier than the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines: findings of a single centre audit

BACKGROUND

To assess the adherence rate of surveillance colonoscopy booking intervals to recommended National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

METHODS

Patients on The Queen Elizabeth Hospital colorectal unit surveillance colonoscopy waiting list were included in this audit. Patient demographics, colonoscopy findings, follow-up plans and pathology results were analysed. Patients were categorized as normal/non-neoplastic finding, low-risk adenomas, high-risk adenomas, personal history of colorectal cancer (CRC) and family history of CRC. Booked colonoscopy within 2 months of guideline recommended interval was considered correct.

RESULTS

A total of 467 patients were included (59.1% male; mean age 60 years). Two hundred and fifty-one (53.7%) patients had an incorrect surveillance colonoscopy booking. Twenty-seven patients with a normal/non-neoplastic previous colonoscopy not requiring surveillance colonoscopy were incorrectly booked for a colonoscopy. For the 222 patients booked incorrectly and requiring surveillance colonoscopy, 88.7% were early and 11.3% were late. The proportions of incorrect bookings were highest in the low-risk finding (66.1%) and history of CRC (67.6%) groups. For the 186 patients requiring a 3-year surveillance interval, 38.7% were booked incorrectly. For the 197 patients requiring a 5-year surveillance interval, 63.5% were booked incorrectly, of which 99.2% were early. More 5-year surveillance interval patients were booked at 3 years (n = 79), than at the correct interval of 5 years (n = 72).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy is poor. The majority of deviations represent early follow-up, which is most common among patients with low-risk findings or history of CRC. There is a tendency towards 3-year surveillance among low-risk patients.

Receipt of Colonoscopy Following Diagnosis of Advanced Adenomas: An Analysis within Integrated Healthcare Delivery Systems

BACKGROUND

To reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after advanced adenoma removal. Little is known about adherence to that interval.

METHODS

We describe patterns of and factors associated with subsequent colonoscopy among persons with ≥3 adenomas and/or ≥1 adenoma with villous/tubulovillous histology in four U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems. We report Kaplan-Meier estimators of the cumulative percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years after an index colonoscopy with high-risk findings. Combining data from three healthcare systems, we used multivariable logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between patient characteristics and receipt of subsequent colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Among 6,909 persons with advanced adenomas, the percent receiving a subsequent colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years later ranged from 18.3% (95% CI: 11.7%-27.8%) to 59.5% (95% CI: 53.8%-65.2%) across healthcare systems. Differences remained significant in the multivariable model. Patients with ≥3 adenomas were more likely than those with 1 to 2 villous/tubulovillous adenomas to undergo subsequent colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopy was also more common for patients ages 60-74 and less common for patients ages 80 to 89 compared with those ages 50 to 54 years at their index colonoscopy. Sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity index score were generally not associated with subsequent colonoscopy receipt.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy within the recommended interval following advanced adenoma was underutilized and varied by healthcare system, age, and number of adenomas.

IMPACT

Strategies to improve adherence to surveillance colonoscopy following advanced adenomas are needed.

Guideline Adherence to Colonoscopic Surveillance Intervals after Polypectomy in Korea: Results from a Nationwide Survey

Background/Aims

People around the world are increasingly choosing to undergo colorectal cancer screening via colonoscopy. As a result, guideline adherence to postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance has drawn increasing attention. The present study was performed to assess recognition and adherence to guidelines among primary care physicians and gastroenterologists and to identify characteristics associated with compliance.

Methods

A nationwide sample of primary care physicians employed at cancer screening facilities and registered members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were recruited. Participants were asked to complete a survey of six hypothetical clinical scenarios designed to assess their potential course of action in response to screening or follow-up colonoscopy results. Frequencies and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for guideline adherence were estimated.

Results

The proportions of doctors recommending shortened colonoscopy surveillance intervals for low- and high-risk adenomas were greater than 90% among primary physicians and were much lower among gastroenterologists. Guideline adherence was relatively good among groups of doctors who were young, had a specialty in gastroenterology, worked at tertiary hospitals, and cared for an appropriate number of patients.

Conclusions

The present study reveals a remaining discrepancy between practitioner recommendations and current guidelines for postpolypectomy surveillance. Several factors were shown to be related to guideline adherence, suggesting a need for appropriate control and continuing education or training programs among particular groups of practitioners.

Computed Tomography Colonography Less Costly Than Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Commercially Insured Patients

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.

METHODS

Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.

RESULTS

In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.

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.

Less Is More: A Minimalist Approach to Endoscopy

A substantial literature documents inappropriate usage of gastrointestinal endoscopy in a variety of clinical settings. Overusage of endoscopy appears to be common, and 30% or more of procedures performed in some clinical settings have questionable indications. The potential reasons for overuse of endoscopy are multiple, and include cancer phobia, fear of medical malpractice litigation, profit motive, the investigation of "incidentalomas" found on other imaging, and underappreciation of the delayed harms of endoscopy, among other reasons. Clinical guidelines, which should limit overuse of endoscopy, may instead serve to promote it, if authors opt to be "conservative," recommending endoscopy in situations of unclear utility. Several strategies may decrease overuse of endoscopy, including careful attention to risk stratification when choosing patients to screen, adherence to guidelines for surveillance intervals for colonoscopy, the use of quality indicators to identify outliers in endoscopy utilization, and education on appropriate indications and the risks of overuse at the medical student, residency, and fellowship levels.

Factors Associated With the Overuse of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

This systematic review examined factors associated with overuse of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1998 to March 2017. Studies were included if they were written in English, contained original data, involved a US population, and examined factors potentially associated with overuse of CRC screening. Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality, and extracted data. In 8 studies, the associations between patient factors, including age, sex, race, and number of comorbidities, were tested and were inconsistently associated with CRC screening overuse. Overuse of screening was greater in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic regions and in urban areas and was lower in academically affiliated centers. Although the literature supports important overuse of CRC screening, it remains unclear what drives these practices. Future research should thoroughly explore these factors and test the impact of interventions to reduce overuse of screening.

Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risks of missed findings after inadequate bowel preparation are not fully characterized in a diverse cohort. We aimed to evaluate the likelihood of missed polyps after an inadequate preparation as assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

METHODS

In this observational study of prospectively collected data within a large, national, endoscopic consortium, we identified patients aged 50 to 75 years who underwent average-risk screening colonoscopy (C1) followed by a second colonoscopy for any indication within 3 years (C2). We determined the polyp detection rates (PDRs) and advanced PDRs during C2 stratified by C1 BBPS scores.

RESULTS

Among segment pairs without polyps at C1 (N = 601), those with inadequate C1 BBPS segment scores had a higher PDR at C2 (10%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation at C1 (5%; P = .04). Among segment pairs with polyps at C1 (N = 154), segments with inadequate bowel preparation scores at C1 had higher advanced PDRs at C2 (20%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation scores at C1 (4%; P = .03). In multivariable analysis, the presence of advanced polyps at C1 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.1-10.8) but not inadequate BBPS scores at C1 (adjusted OR 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.1) was associated with a significantly increased risk of advanced polyps at C2.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate BBPS segment scores generally are associated with higher rates of polyps and advanced polyps at subsequent colonoscopy within a short timeframe. The presence of advanced polyps as well as inadequate BBPS segment scores can inform the risk of missed polyps and help triage which patients warrant a timely repeat colonoscopy.

Optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period for the adenoma patients who had an adequate polypectomy at baseline colonoscopy

The role of surveillance colonoscopy has long been established: it reduces both the incidence and the mortality of colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period for the adenoma patients who underwent an adequate polypectomy at baseline colonoscopy to avoid overuse or underuse of colonoscopy. A retrospective study was carried out on the baseline adenoma patients who had had at least two completed colonoscopy examinations during the years 2000-2013 in the Digestive Endoscopy Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University. All the patients had a complete polypectomy of adenomas at baseline. Data on the patients' demographics and colorectal findings were extracted from a specially designed colonoscopy database. The end point was the finding of adenoma during the subsequent surveillance colonoscopy; an analysis was carried out to identify recurrence factors and the optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period. A total of 765 (463 men, 302 women, average age 56.51±11.95) eligible patients were included in the study. Three hundred and twelve patients had adenoma and 453 had no adenoma after surveillance colonoscopies (the frequency of repeat colonoscopy is 1-10, average 1.73±1.24). The diameter of adenomas found on the follow-up colonoscopy was 0.2-3.0 cm (average 0.54±0.30 cm). The number of adenomas was 1-11 (2.21±1.53) and the surveillance adenoma interval period was 0.5-13 years (2.64±2.36 years). A total of 576 patients had baseline nonadvanced adenomas. Male sex, age older than 50 years, and more than two different intestine segment adenomas were the risk factors for recurrence. The optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period is 2.85 years (95% confidence interval: 2.53-3.17) according to the recurrence rate of 5% adenomas. One hundred and eighty-nine patients had baseline advanced adenomas. Male sex, diameter of adenomas less than 1.0 cm, and adenomas in the right colon or the whole colon were the risk factors for recurrence. The optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period is 2.06 years (95% confidence interval: 1.71-2.45) according to the recurrence rate of 5% adenomas. The optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period is 3 years or so for the adenoma patients who had an adequate polypectomy at baseline colonoscopy. Male sex, age older than 50 years, less than 1.0 cm adenomas diameter and the right colon, or multisegment intestine adenomas were the risk factors for recurrence. This has significance for guiding the follow-up colonoscopy interval time of the patients with intestine adenomas.

Colonoscopy overuse in colorectal cancer screening and associated factors in Argentina: a retrospective cohort study

Background

In recent years, there has been growing concern about the overuse of colonoscopy (CC). Our objective was to evaluate the incidence rate and cumulative probability of having a potentially inadequate CC (PI-CC, e.g. a CC that was performed earlier that recommended) and the association between the report of a hyperplastic polyp in the baseline CC report and the probability of having a PI-CC.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of adults 50y/o or older with a complete baseline CC between January 1st and December 31st 2005, without reported lesions or with hyperplastic polyps, based on secondary data extracted from the electronic medical record of the Hospital Italiano of Buenos Aires. The outcome consisted of time until a PI-CC, defined as the time measured between basal colonoscopy and a colonoscopy performed earlier than the inter-screening interval recommended by the USPSTF and the USMSTF.

Results

389 patients were included. The cumulative probability of receiving a PI-CC over 10 years was 0.29 (95% CI 0.241, 0.342). The incidence rate resulted in 30.91 PI-CC per 1000 person-years (95% CI 25.14, 38). The crude analysis of the association between the outcome and the presence of hyperplastic polyps in the baseline CC, showed a statistically significant difference between both groups (log rank, p 0.036). The multivariate analysis yielded a hazard ratio of 1.67 (95% CI 1.02–2.73).

Conclusion

We observed that 3 in every 10 patients treated in our health system received a PI-CC during the first ten consecutive years after a normal complete CC. Furthermore, this could be in part attributed to the presence of a hyperplastic polyp in the baseline CC.

Comparison of Telephone and Televideo Modes for Delivery of Genetic Counseling: a Randomized Trial

Telephone and televideo have yielded equivalent patient satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes when compared to in-person genetic counseling, yet little is known about how they compare to one another. In this randomized controlled trial, veterans received genetic counseling via telephone or traveled to a clinic to participate via encrypted televideo. Knowledge and visit satisfaction were assessed 2 weeks later. Travel time, mileage, and out-of-pocket costs were calculated for videoconferencing. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients and counselors to assess acceptability. Of the 20 male patients randomized to telephone, 90% received counseling and provided outcomes; of the 18 randomized to televideo, 67% received counseling and 50% provided outcomes. Telephone patients answered a mean of 4.4 of eight questions correctly at baseline and 4.7 at follow-up; televideo means were 5.6 and 6.5, respectively. Satisfaction was 25.2 out of 30 for telephone and 26.9 for televideo. Televideo patients incurred a median of 2.8 h of travel time, 40 roundtrip miles, and $67.29 in costs. Patients and counselors found both modes acceptable for providing education and answering questions. Although patients liked the flexibility of telephone, counselors felt patients missed more appointments and were distracted when using telephone. A noted advantage of videoconferencing was reading body language. Further evaluation of alternative delivery modes is needed.

Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world

Overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is challenging given the difficulty of defining appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although harms from overuse have not been well quantified and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be increasing worldwide.

Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations.

METHODS

We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.

Surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal cancer

With the increase in colorectal cancer burden, surveillance following endoscopic and surgical resection is an essential issue. The aim of surveillance programs is improvement of patient survival by early detection of residual tumor tissue or local recurrence, metachronous colorectal tumors, and metastases. Appropriate surveillance should be determined according to this risk of factors. In current guidelines, only surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after endoscopic resection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia, whereas intensive, multimodality surveillance using colonoscopy, radiological imaging and tumor marker measurements is recommended following surgical resection of invasive colorectal cancer. Detailed recommendations, including the timing of surveillance, are described based on high-quality evidence. However, there are still many unresolved issues for which more high-quality evidence is required.

Editorial: Financial Incentives to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening: Does it Make Cents?

While colorectal cancer screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, there is much room for improvement in screening adherence particularly among the uninsured and ethnic minorities. In this issue, Gupta et al. conducted a randomized controlled study to test the impact of a small financial incentive on screening adherence. Their negative study, taken in the context of prior studies and behavioral economics literature, leads us to conclude that it does not pay to add this small financial incentive to community outreach. Instead, we should invest in a systematic approach to screening, including patient navigation.

What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

In the USA, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. Declining rates of colon cancer in the past decade have been attributed in part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps via colonoscopy. Recent emphasis has been placed on measures to increase the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. These have been divided into pre-procedure quality metrics (bowel preparation), procedural quality metrics (cecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate), post-procedure metrics (surveillance interval), and other quality metrics (patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure). The purpose of this article is to review the data and controversies surrounding each of these and identify ways to optimize the performance of colonoscopy.