E C Verschuren1, D E Ong, M A Kamm, P V Desmond, M Lust. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology, Vu University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physician adherence to guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is often poor. This may lead to adverse patient outcomes and excess endoscopic workload. AIMS: To assess the attitudes and practice of IBD specialists in a tertiary centre towards colonoscopic surveillance. METHODS: First, a questionnaire evaluating attitudes and approach to CRC surveillance was issued to 36 clinicians at one tertiary referral hospital. Second, a retrospective audit of IBD surveillance colonoscopy practice over a 2-year period was performed. RESULTS: Questionnaire response rate was 97%. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents were aware of, and used, Australian guidelines. Surveillance was undertaken by all clinicians in patients with extensive colitis, 83% in patients with left-sided colitis and 51% in patients with proctitis. Seventy-six per cent used chromoendoscopy, and 47% took 10 to 20 random biopsies. Colectomy was considered appropriate in 0% for unifocal low-grade dysplasia, 35% for multifocal low-grade dysplasia and 83% for high-grade dysplasia. Sixty-six per cent would remove elevated dysplastic lesions endoscopically. The audit identified 103 surveillance colonoscopies in 81 patients. Chromoendoscopy was used in 21% of cases, and the median number of random biopsies was 13. Sixty-two per cent of colonoscopies were performed outside the guidelines in relation to colonoscopic frequency. Following colonoscopy, an appropriate recommendation for subsequent surveillance was documented in 40% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge and practice of CRC surveillance in IBD vary among specialist clinicians and often deviate from guidelines. Many clinicians perform surveillance earlier and more frequently than recommended. These findings have implications for patient outcomes and workload.
BACKGROUND: Physician adherence to guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is often poor. This may lead to adverse patient outcomes and excess endoscopic workload. AIMS: To assess the attitudes and practice of IBD specialists in a tertiary centre towards colonoscopic surveillance. METHODS: First, a questionnaire evaluating attitudes and approach to CRC surveillance was issued to 36 clinicians at one tertiary referral hospital. Second, a retrospective audit of IBD surveillance colonoscopy practice over a 2-year period was performed. RESULTS: Questionnaire response rate was 97%. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents were aware of, and used, Australian guidelines. Surveillance was undertaken by all clinicians in patients with extensive colitis, 83% in patients with left-sided colitis and 51% in patients with proctitis. Seventy-six per cent used chromoendoscopy, and 47% took 10 to 20 random biopsies. Colectomy was considered appropriate in 0% for unifocal low-grade dysplasia, 35% for multifocal low-grade dysplasia and 83% for high-grade dysplasia. Sixty-six per cent would remove elevated dysplastic lesions endoscopically. The audit identified 103 surveillance colonoscopies in 81 patients. Chromoendoscopy was used in 21% of cases, and the median number of random biopsies was 13. Sixty-two per cent of colonoscopies were performed outside the guidelines in relation to colonoscopic frequency. Following colonoscopy, an appropriate recommendation for subsequent surveillance was documented in 40% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge and practice of CRC surveillance in IBD vary among specialist clinicians and often deviate from guidelines. Many clinicians perform surveillance earlier and more frequently than recommended. These findings have implications for patient outcomes and workload.