12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in England by using recent World Endoscopy Organisation guidelines, compare incidence among colonoscopy providers, and explore associated factors that could benefit from quality improvement initiatives.

          Design

          Population based cohort study.

          Setting

          National Health Service in England between 2005 and 2013.

          Population

          All people undergoing colonoscopy and subsequently diagnosed as having colorectal cancer up to three years after their investigation (PCCRC-3yr).

          Main outcome measures

          National trends in incidence of PCCRC (within 6-36 months of colonoscopy), univariable and multivariable analyses to explore factors associated with occurrence, and funnel plots to measure variation among providers.

          Results

          The overall unadjusted PCCRC-3yr rate was 7.4% (9317/126 152), which decreased from 9.0% in 2005 to 6.5% in 2013 (P<0.01). Rates were lower for colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme (593/16 640, 3.6%), while they were higher for those conducted by non-NHS providers (187/2009, 9.3%). Rates were higher in women, in older age groups, and in people with inflammatory bowel disease or diverticular disease, in those with higher comorbidity scores, and in people with previous cancers. Substantial variation in rates among colonoscopy providers remained after adjustment for case mix.

          Conclusions

          Wide variation exists in PCCRC-3yr rates across NHS colonoscopy providers in England. The lowest incidence was seen in colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Quality improvement initiatives are needed to address this variation in rates and prevent colorectal cancer by enabling earlier diagnosis, removing premalignant polyps, and therefore improving outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

          Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy. 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Thirty-year analysis of a colonoscopic surveillance program for neoplasia in ulcerative colitis.

            The value of colonoscopic surveillance for neoplasia in long-standing extensive ulcerative colitis remains controversial. This study reports on prospectively collected data from a surveillance program over a 30-year period. Data were obtained from the prospective surveillance database, medical records, colonoscopy, and histology reports. The primary end point was defined as death, colectomy, withdrawal from surveillance, or census date (January 1, 2001). Follow-up information was obtained for patients who left the program. Six hundred patients underwent 2627 colonoscopies during 5932 patient-years of follow-up. The cecal intubation rate was 98.7%, with no significant complications. Seventy-four patients (12.3%) developed neoplasia, including 30 colorectal cancers (CRCs). There was no difference in median age at onset of colitis for those with or without CRC (P = .8, Mann-Whitney). The cumulative incidence of CRC by colitis duration was 2.5% at 20 years, 7.6% at 30 years, and 10.8% at 40 years. The 5-year survival rate was 73.3%. Sixteen of 30 cancers were interval cancers. CRC incidence decreased over time (r = -.40, P = .04; linear regression). Colonoscopic surveillance is safe and allows the vast majority of patients to retain their colon. Although two thirds of patients with potentially life-threatening neoplasia benefited from surveillance, the program was not wholly effective in cancer prevention. The cancer incidence, however, was considerably lower than in the majority of other studies, and was constant for up to 40 years of colitis duration, suggesting there is no need to intensify surveillance over time.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy

              Colonoscopy should be delivered by endoscopists performing high quality procedures. The British Society of Gastroenterology, the UK Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland have developed quality assurance measures and key performance indicators for the delivery of colonoscopy within the UK. This document sets minimal standards for delivery of procedures along with aspirational targets that all endoscopists should aim for.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: clinical research fellow in gastroenterology
                Role: consultant gastroenterologist
                Role: senior research statistician
                Role: data manager
                Role: clinical associate professor
                Role: professor of colorectal surgery
                Role: consultant gastroenterologist
                Role: consultant gastroenterologist
                Role: professor of cancer epidemiology
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                13 November 2019
                : 367
                : l6090
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cancer Epidemiology Group, Institute of Cancer and Pathology and Institute of Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
                [2 ]Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Pinderfields General Hospital, Wakefield, UK
                [3 ]Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
                [4 ]Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK
                [5 ]John Goligher Colorectal Unit, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK
                [6 ]University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, UK
                [7 ]Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
                [8 ]Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: N E Burr nick.burr@ 123456nhs.net (or @Nick_Burr1 on Twitter)
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1988-2982
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0591-1458
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2518-5799
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3643-4129
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3603-0861
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0731-1541
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9507-0295
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9068-018X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1075-6544
                Article
                burn051410
                10.1136/bmj.l6090
                6849511
                31722875
                cce8c038-9d2d-4b2c-8b27-8fcc977ec52d
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 01 October 2019
                Categories
                Research
                1778

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article