Literature DB >> 29317271

Temporal trends in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates in 50- to 74-year-old persons: a population-based study.

Sanjay K Murthy1, Eric I Benchimol2, Jill Tinmouth3, Paul D James4, Robin Ducharme5, Alaa Rostom4, Catherine Dubé4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancers (CRCs) diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after colonoscopy, termed postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs), arise primarily due to missed or inadequately treated neoplasms during colonoscopy. Introduction of multiple quality indicators and technological advances to colonoscopy practice should have reduced the PCCRC rate over time. We assessed temporal trends in the population rate of PCCRC as a measure of changing colonoscopy quality.
METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of persons aged 50 to 74 years without advanced risk factors for CRC who underwent complete colonoscopy in Ontario, Canada between 1996 and 2010. We defined the PCCRC rate as the proportion of individuals diagnosed with CRC within 36 months of colonoscopy that had PCCRC. We compared age-adjusted and sex-adjusted rates of PCCRC over time based on 3 periods (1996-2001, 2001-2006 and 2006-2010) and assessed the independent association between time period and PCCRC risk through multivariable regression, with respect to all PCCRCs, proximal PCCRC and distal PCCRC.
RESULTS: There was a marked increase in colonoscopy volumes over the study period, particularly in younger age groups and non-hospital settings. Among 1,093,658 eligible persons the PCCRC rate remained stable at approximately 8% over the 15-year study period. The adjusted odds of PCCRC, distal PCCRC and proximal PCCRC, comparing the 2006 to 2010 period with the 1996 to 2001 period, were 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.31), 1.11 (95% CI, 0.91-1.34), and 1.14 (95% CI, 0.94-1.38), respectively. Temporal trends in PCCRC risk did not differ by endoscopist specialty or institutional setting after covariate adjustment.
CONCLUSION: The PCCRC rate in Ontario has remained consistently high over time. Widespread initiatives are needed to improve colonoscopy quality.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29317271     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  4 in total

1.  Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Rinku Sutradhar; Ning Liu; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-08-13

Review 2.  Recent advances in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Edward Seward
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-07-09

3.  Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study.

Authors:  Nicholas E Burr; Edmund Derbyshire; John Taylor; Simon Whalley; Venkataraman Subramanian; Paul J Finan; Matthew D Rutter; Roland Valori; Eva J A Morris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-11-13

4.  Guidelines for accreditation of endoscopy units: quality measures from the Korean Society of Coloproctology.

Authors:  Rumi Shin; Seongdae Lee; Kyung-Su Han; Dae Kyung Sohn; Sang Hui Moon; Dong Hyun Choi; Bong-Hyeon Kye; Hae-Jung Son; Sun Il Lee; Sumin Si; Won-Kyung Kang
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 1.859

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.