Repeat colonoscopy after a colonoscopy with a negative result in Ontario: a population-based cohort study

Duration of risk reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a complete colonoscopy in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years after a negative procedure. If risk reduction extends past 10 years, the recommended interval could be extended, reducing the burden on the individual and health-care system. We aimed to estimate the duration that patients remain at reduced risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a complete colonoscopy.

METHODS

We did a population-based cohort study of individuals aged 50-65 years between Jan 1, 1994, to Dec 31, 2017. We excluded individuals with previous exposure to colonoscopy or colorectal surgery, those previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer, or a history of hereditary or other bowel disorders. We followed up participants until Dec 31, 2018, and identified all colonoscopies performed in this time period. We used a 9-level time-varying measure of exposure, capturing time since last complete colonoscopy (no complete colonoscopy, ≤5 years, >5-10 years, >10-15 years, and >15 years) and whether an intervention was performed (biopsy or polypectomy). A Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, residential income quintile, and immigration status was used to estimate the association between exposure to a complete colonoscopy and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

FINDINGS

5 298 033 individuals (2 609 060 [49·2%] female and 2 688 973 [50·8%] male; no data on ethnicity were available) were included in the cohort, with a median follow-up of 12·56 years (IQR 6·26-20·13). 90 532 (1·7%) individuals were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 44 088 (0·8%) died from colorectal cancer. Compared with those who did not have a colonoscopy, the risk of colorectal cancer in those who had a complete negative colonoscopy was reduced at all timepoints, including when the procedure occurred more than 15 years earlier (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] for female individuals and 0·57 [0·46-0·70] for male individuals. A similar finding was observed for colorectal cancer mortality, with lower risk at all timepoints, including when the procedure occurred more than 15 years earlier (HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·83] for female participants and 0·65 [0·50-0·83] for male participants). Those who had a colonoscopy with intervention had a significantly lower colorectal cancer incidence than those who did not undergo colonoscopy if the procedure occurred within 10 years for females (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·63-0·77]) and up to 15 years for males (0·62 [(0·53-0·72]).

INTERPRETATION

Compared with those who do not receive colonoscopy, individuals who have a negative colonoscopy result remain at lower risk for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality more than 15 years after the procedure. The current recommendation of repeat screening at 10 years in these individuals should be reassessed.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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.

A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of an Endoscopist Audit and Feedback Report for Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Variation in endoscopist performance contributes to poor-quality colonoscopy. Audit and feedback (A/F) can be used to improve physician performance, particularly among lower performing physicians. In this large pragmatic randomized controlled trial, we compared A/F to improve endoscopists' colonoscopy performance to usual practice.

METHODS

Endoscopists practicing in Ontario, Canada, in 2014 were randomly assigned in October 2015 (index date) to receive (intervention group, n = 417) or not receive (control group, n = 416) an A/F report generated centrally using health administrative data. Colonoscopy performance was measured in both groups over two 12-month periods: prereport and postreport (relative to the index date). The primary outcome was polypectomy rate (PR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation rate, bowel preparation, and premature repeat after normal colonoscopy. A post hoc analysis used adenoma detection rate as the outcome. Outcomes were compared between groups for all endoscopists and for lower performing endoscopists using Poisson regression analyses under a difference-in-difference framework.

RESULTS

Among all endoscopists, PR did not significantly improve from prereport to postreport periods for those receiving the intervention (relative rate [RR], intervention vs control: 1.07 vs 1.05, P = 0.09). Among lower performing endoscopists, PR improved significantly (RR, intervention vs control 1.34 vs 1.11, P = 0.02) in the intervention group compared with controls. In this subgroup, adenoma detection rate also improved but not significantly (RR, intervention vs control 1.12 vs 1.04, P = 0.12). There was no significant improvement in secondary outcomes between the intervention and control groups.

DISCUSSION

A/F reports for colonoscopy improve performance in lower performing endoscopists (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02595775).

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.

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.

Decreased Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Incidence-Based Mortality in the Screening-Age Population of Ontario

Background and Aims

We aimed to evaluate trends in Ontario, Canada, 2002 to 2016, in uptake of colorectal evaluative procedures, colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incidence-based mortality in the colorectal screening-age population.

Methods

We defined the screening age-eligible population as persons 51 to 74 years of age with ≥1 year eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, excluding those with a diagnosis of CRC in the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) prior to age 50 or January 1, 2002. We computed annual up-to-date status with colorectal evaluative procedures from billing claims, and CRC incidence from the OCR. In order to compute incidence-based CRC mortality, we included persons with a first diagnosis of CRC between the ages of 51 and 74, diagnosed between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2001, still alive and <75 years of age on January 1, 2002, based on cause of death from the OCR. Overall, age-stratified and sex-stratified trends were evaluated by Cochran–Armitage trend tests.

Results

Persons up to date with colorectal evaluative procedures increased from 628,214/2,782,061 (22.6%) in 2002 to 2,584,570/4,179,789 (62.2%) in 2016. CRC incidence fell from 129.3/100,000 in 2002 to 94.54/100,000 in 2016, and incidence-based CRC mortality fell from 40.8/100,000 to 24.1/100,000. Decreasing trends in overall and stratified incidence and mortality were all significant, except among persons 51 to 54 years old.

Conclusions

There was continued increase in persons up-to-date with colorectal evaluative procedures, and significant decrease in CRC incidence and incidence-based CRC mortality from 2002 through 2016.

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.

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.

Repeat Colonoscopy within 6 Months after Initial Outpatient Colonoscopy in Ontario: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study is to examine utilization of early repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure.

METHODS

We identified persons having repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months following outpatient colonoscopy without prior colonoscopy ≤ 5 years or prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). We modeled repeat colonoscopy using a generalized estimating equation with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of patients by endoscopist.

RESULTS

The population included 334,663 persons, 7,892 (2.36%) of whom had an early repeat colonoscopy within 6 months. Overall, endoscopist prior year colonoscopy volume was inversely related to repeat ≤ 6 months. Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months varied by the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy (adjusted OR = 1.41 (95% CI 1.29-1.55)) at nonhospital facilities compared to teaching or community hospitals. Among those who had polypectomy or biopsy, the adjusted OR for early repeat ≤ 6 months was elevated among those whose index colonoscopy was at a nonhospital facility (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.30-1.60), compared to those at a teaching hospital or community hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure is associated with the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy.