Paulina Wieszczy1, Elisabeth Waldmann2, Magnus Løberg3, Jaroslaw Regula4, Maciej Rupinski4, Marek Bugajski4, Kathryn Gray5, Mette Kalager3, Monika Ferlitsch6, Michal F Kaminski7, Michael Bretthauer8. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Oncological Gastroenterology and Department of Cancer Prevention, the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Transplantation Medicine Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 2. Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Quality Assurance Working Group of the Austrian Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Frontier Science Foundation, Boston, Brookline, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Transplantation Medicine Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Oncological Gastroenterology and Department of Cancer Prevention, the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. 5. Frontier Science Foundation, Boston, Brookline, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Quality Assurance Working Group of the Austrian Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Oncological Gastroenterology and Department of Cancer Prevention, the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Transplantation Medicine Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 8. Department of Transplantation Medicine Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Frontier Science Foundation, Boston, Brookline, Massachusetts; Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: michael.bretthauer@medisin.uio.no.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal is an increasing burden in many countries. Surveillance recommendations consider characteristics of removed adenomas, but not colonoscopist performance. We investigated the impact of colonoscopist performance on colorectal cancer risk after adenoma removal. METHODS: We compared colorectal cancer risk after removal of high-risk adenomas, low-risk adenomas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality (adenoma detection rate <20% vs ≥20%) in the Polish screening program between 2000 and 2011, with follow-up until 2017. Findings were validated in the Austrian colonoscopy screening program. RESULTS: A total of 173,288 Polish colonoscopies were included in the study. Of 262 colonoscopists, 160 (61.1%) were low performers, and 102 (38.9%) were high performers; 11.1% of individuals had low-risk and 6.6% had high-risk adenomas removed at screening; 82.2% had no adenomas. During 10 years of follow-up, 443 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. For low-risk adenoma individuals, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.22% (95% CI 0.14-0.34) with high-performing colonoscopists (hazard ratio [HR] 2.35; 95% CI 1.31-4.21; P = .004). For individuals with high-risk adenomas, colorectal cancer incidence was 1.14% (95% CI 0.87-1.48) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.43% (95% CI 0.27-0.69) with high-performing colonoscopists (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.62-4.47; P < .001). After negative colonoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.30% (95% CI 0.27-0.34) for individuals examined by low-performing colonoscopists, vs 0.15% (95% CI 0.11-0.20) for high-performing (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.52-2.91; P < .001). The observed trends were reproduced in the Austrian validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that endoscopist performance may be an important contributor in addition to polyp characteristics in determining colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy screening.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal is an increasing burden in many countries. Surveillance recommendations consider characteristics of removed adenomas, but not colonoscopist performance. We investigated the impact of colonoscopist performance on colorectal cancer risk after adenoma removal. METHODS: We compared colorectal cancer risk after removal of high-risk adenomas, low-risk adenomas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality (adenoma detection rate <20% vs ≥20%) in the Polish screening program between 2000 and 2011, with follow-up until 2017. Findings were validated in the Austrian colonoscopy screening program. RESULTS: A total of 173,288 Polish colonoscopies were included in the study. Of 262 colonoscopists, 160 (61.1%) were low performers, and 102 (38.9%) were high performers; 11.1% of individuals had low-risk and 6.6% had high-risk adenomas removed at screening; 82.2% had no adenomas. During 10 years of follow-up, 443 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. For low-risk adenoma individuals, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.22% (95% CI 0.14-0.34) with high-performing colonoscopists (hazard ratio [HR] 2.35; 95% CI 1.31-4.21; P = .004). For individuals with high-risk adenomas, colorectal cancer incidence was 1.14% (95% CI 0.87-1.48) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.43% (95% CI 0.27-0.69) with high-performing colonoscopists (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.62-4.47; P < .001). After negative colonoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.30% (95% CI 0.27-0.34) for individuals examined by low-performing colonoscopists, vs 0.15% (95% CI 0.11-0.20) for high-performing (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.52-2.91; P < .001). The observed trends were reproduced in the Austrian validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that endoscopist performance may be an important contributor in addition to polyp characteristics in determining colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy screening.
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; William Hisey; Todd A Mackenzie; Christina M Robinson; Amitabh Srivastava; Reinier G S Meester; Lynn F Butterly Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 10.396