Colorectal cancer detection by colonoscopy in a Swedish county, 1979-95

CT-colonography in the follow-up of acute diverticulitis: patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess CT-colonography (CTC) in the follow-up of diverticulitis regarding patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy for diverticular disease, adenomas and cancer, with colonoscopy as a reference standard.

METHODS

A prospective comparative study where half of the patients underwent colonoscopy first, followed immediately by CTC. The other half had the examinations in the reverse order. Patient experiences and findings were registered after every examination, blinded to the examiner.

RESULTS

Of a total of 110 consecutive patients, 108 were included in the study, with a median age of 56 years (range 27-84). The success rate was 91% for colonoscopy and 86% for CTC. Examination time was 25 min for both methods. The mean time for CTC evaluation was 20 min. Eighty-three per cent of the patients received sedation during colonoscopy. Despite this, patients experienced colonoscopy as more painful (p < 0.001) and uncomfortable (p < 0.001). Diverticulosis and polyps were detected in 94% and 20% with colonoscopy and in 94% and 29% with CTC, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for CTC in the detection of diverticulosis was 99% and 67%, with a good agreement (κ = 0.71). Regarding detection of polyps, the sensitivity and specificity were 47% and 75%, with a poor agreement (κ = 0.17). No cancer was found.

CONCLUSION

CTC was less painful and unpleasant and can be used for colonic investigation in the follow-up of diverticulitis. CTC detected diverticulosis with good accuracy while the detection accuracy of small polyps was poor. CTC is a viable alternative, especially in case of incomplete colonoscopy or in a situation with limited colonoscopy resources.

Scope to improve: a multi-centre audit of 16 064 colonoscopies looking at caecal intubation rates, over a 2-year period

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is the 'gold standard' assessment for large bowel mucosal pathology, but a complete examination is essential. The first national colonoscopy audit carried out in 1999 demonstrated caecal intubation rates (CIRs) of 56.9%. As a result, the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on gastrointestinal endoscopy launched a programme of continuous quality improvement. JAG recommends that practitioners undertake 100+ procedures per annum with a target CIR of 90%. This current audit provides an assessment of performance against this quality standard.

DESIGN

Data were collected from all procedures undertaken in 2008-2009 from six hospitals across three English regions.

RESULTS

16064 colonoscopies performed: CIR = 90.57% (95% CI 90.11% to 91.01%). Operators doing 100+ procedures per annum, CIR=91.76% (91.24% to 92.25%). Operators doing <100 procedures per annum, CIR=87.77% (86.82% to 88.67%). Gastroenterologists, CIR=91.01% (90.32% to 91.70%). Surgeons, CIR=91.03% (90.27% to 91.79%). Other practitioners, CIR=81.51% (78.79% to 84.22%). Bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) colonoscopies, CIR=97.71% (97.07% to 98.34%). Non-screening colonoscopies, CIR=88.31% (95% CI 87.68% to 88.94%).

CONCLUSION

This audit of 16064 colonoscopies across three regions demonstrates aggregated achievement of the CIR quality standard. However, there is a significant performance gap when comparing BCSP colonoscopists with non-screening colonoscopists and the overall CIR of >90% is supported by the volume of BCSP colonoscopy. Endoscopists performing low volume colonoscopy (<100 per annum), have CIR of <90%. Endoscopists with low volume practice who do not meet the quality standards should engage in skills augmentation plus further training and increase volume of colonoscopy with local mentorship, or stop performing colonoscopy.