Literature DB >> 31174223

Risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Denmark: time trends and comparison with Sweden and the English National Health Service.

Lasse Pedersen1, Roland Valori2, Inge Bernstein1, Karen Lindorff-Larsen3, Charlotte Green4, Christian Torp-Pedersen5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rate is a key quality indicator for colonoscopy. Previously published PCCRC rates have been difficult to compare owing to differences in methodology. The primary aim of this study was to compare Danish PCCRC rates internationally and to calculate Danish PCCRC rates using the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) consensus method for future comparison. The secondary aim was to identify factors associated with PCCRC.
METHODS: National registries were used to examine the risk of PCCRC. The Danish 3-year rate of PCCRC (PCCRC-3yr) was calculated using previously published methods from England, Sweden, and the WEO. Poisson regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with PCCRC.
RESULTS: The Danish PCCRC-3yr was significantly higher than the rate in the English NHS (relative risk [RR] 1.12, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.05 - 1.19) and Sweden (RR 1.15, 95 %CI 1.06 - 1.24). The Danish PCCRC-3yr based on the WEO consensus method fell from 22.5 % in 2001 to 7.9 % in 2012. The multivariable Poisson regression model found PCCRC to be significantly associated with diverticulitis (RR 3.25, 95 %CI 2.88 - 3.66), ulcerative colitis (RR 3.44, 95 %CI 2.79 - 4.23), hereditary cancer (age < 60 years: RR 7.39, 95 %CI 5.77 - 9.47; age ≥ 60 years: RR 3.81, 95 %CI 2.74 - 5.31), and location in the transverse (RR 1.57, 95 %CI 1.28 - 1.94) and ascending colon (RR 1.85, 95 %CI 1.64 - 2.08).
CONCLUSIONS: The PCCRC-3yr was higher in Denmark than in comparable countries. Differences in colonoscopist training, background, and certification are possible contributing factors. A review of colonoscopist training and certification in Denmark, and continuous audit and feedback of colonoscopist performance may reduce PCCRC-3yr. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31174223     DOI: 10.1055/a-0919-4803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  5 in total

1.  Validation of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) cases reported at national level following local root cause analysis: REFLECT study.

Authors:  Ahmir Ahmad; Angad Dhillon; Brian P Saunders; Misha Kabir; Siwan Thomas-Gibson
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01-24

2.  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

Review 3.  The Relationship between Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer and Quality Indicators of Colonoscopy: The Latest Single-center Cohort Study with a Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Hayato Yamaguchi; Masakatsu Fukuzawa; Hirohito Minami; Tadashi Ichimiya; Hiroshi Takahashi; Yubu Matsue; Mitsuyoshi Honjo; Yasutake Hirayama; Daisuke Nutahara; Junichi Taira; Hironori Nakamura; Takashi Kawai; Takao Itoi
Journal:  Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 1.271

Review 4.  Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender.

Authors:  R Hultcrantz
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 8.989

5.  Risk of a post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: a Danish population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Frederikke Schønfeldt Troelsen; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Lars Pedersen; Rune Erichsen
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.