Association between improved adenoma detection rates and interval colorectal cancer rates after a quality improvement program

Published:February 21, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.02.016

      Background and Aims

      Although colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, interval CRCs (iCRCs) still occur. We aimed to determine iCRC incidence, assess the relationship between adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and iCRC rates, and evaluate iCRC rates over time concomitant with initiation of an institutional colonoscopy quality improvement (QI) program.

      Methods

      We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy at an academic medical center (January 2003 to December 2015). We identified iCRCs through our data warehouse and reviewed charts to confirm appropriateness for study inclusion. iCRC was defined as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 60 months and early iCRC as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 36 months after index colonoscopy. We measured the relationship between provider ADRs and iCRC rates and assessed iCRC rates over time with initiation of a QI program that started in 2010.

      Results

      A total of 193,939 colonoscopies were performed over the study period. We identified 186 patients with iCRC. The overall iCRC rate was .12% and the early iCRC rate .06%. Average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the highest ADR quartile (34%-52%) had a 4-fold lower iCRC risk (relative risk, .23; 95% confidence interval, .11-.48) than those undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the lowest quartile (12%-21%). After QI program initiation, overall iCRC rates improved from .15% to .08% (P < .001) and early iCRC rates improved from .07% to .04% (P = .004).

      Conclusions

      We confirmed that iCRC rate is inversely correlated with provider ADR. ADRs increased and iCRC rates decreased over time, concomitant with a QI program focused on split-dose bowel preparation, quality metric measurement, provider education, and feedback. iCRC rate measurement should be considered a feasible, outcomes-driven institutional metric of colonoscopy quality.

      Abbreviations:

      ADR (adenoma detection rate), CI (confidence interval), CRC (colorectal cancer), iCRC (interval colorectal cancer), ICD (International Classification of Diseases), RR (relative risk), QI (quality improvement), WT (withdrawal time)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nishihara R.
        • Wu K.
        • Lochhead P.
        • et al.
        Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 1095-1105
        • Tinmouth J.
        • Vella E.T.
        • Baxter N.N.
        • et al.
        Colorectal cancer screening in average risk populations: evidence summary.
        Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 2016: 1-18
        • Levin T.R.
        • Corley D.A.
        • Jensen C.D.
        • et al.
        Effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence and mortality in a large community-based population.
        Gastroenterology. 2018; 155: 1383-1391
        • Siegel R.L.
        • Miller K.D.
        • Fedewa S.A.
        • et al.
        Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67: 177-193
        • Edwards B.K.
        • Ward E.
        • Kohler B.A.
        • et al.
        Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates.
        Cancer. 2010; 116: 544-573
        • Benedict M.
        • Galvao Neto A.
        • Zhang X.
        Interval colorectal carcinoma: an unsolved debate.
        World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21: 12735-12741
        • Samadder N.J.
        • Curtin K.
        • Tuohy T.M.F.
        • et al.
        Characteristics of missed or interval colorectal cancer and patient survival: a population-based study.
        Gastroenterology. 2014; 146: 950-960
        • Brenner H.
        • Chang-Claude J.
        • Seiler C.M.
        • et al.
        Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study.
        Gut. 2012; 61: 1576-1582
        • Cooper G.S.
        • Xu F.
        • Barnholtz Sloan J.S.
        • et al.
        Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in Medicare beneficiaries.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 3044-3052
        • Bressler B.
        • Paszat L.F.
        • Chen Z.
        • et al.
        Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis.
        Gastroenterology. 2007; 132: 96-102
        • Wender R.C.
        • Doroshenk M.
        • Brooks D.
        • et al.
        Creating and implementing a national public health campaign: the American Cancer Societyʼs and National Colorectal Cancer Roundtableʼs 80% by 2018 Initiative.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2018; 113: 1739-1741
        • Rex D.K.
        Polyp detection at colonoscopy: endoscopist and technical factors.
        Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2017; 31: 425-433
        • Rex D.K.
        • Boland C.R.
        • Dominitz J.A.
        • et al.
        Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2017; 112: 1016-1030
        • Barclay R.L.
        • Vicari J.J.
        • Doughty A.S.
        • et al.
        Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 2533-2541
        • Rex D.K.
        • Petrini J.L.
        • Baron T.H.
        • et al.
        Quality indicators for colonoscopy.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101: 873-885
        • Kaminski M.F.
        • Regula J.
        • Kraszewska E.
        • et al.
        Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 1795-1803
        • Corley D.A.
        • Jensen C.D.
        • Marks A.R.
        • et al.
        Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 1298-1306
        • Haseman J.H.
        • Lemmel G.T.
        • Rahmani E.Y.
        • et al.
        Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer: evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 1997; 45: 451-455
        • Cohen J.
        • Grunwald D.
        • Grossberg L.B.
        • et al.
        The effect of right colon retroflexion on adenoma detection.
        J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017; 51: 818-824
        • Pohl H.
        • Srivastava A.
        • Bensen S.P.
        • et al.
        Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy—results of the Complete Adenoma Resection (CARE) study.
        YGAST. 2013; 144: 74-80
        • Lee Y.M.
        • Huh K.C.
        Clinical and biological features of interval colorectal cancer.
        Clin Endosc. 2017; 50: 254-260
        • Sawhney M.S.
        • Farrar W.D.
        • Gudiseva S.
        • et al.
        Microsatellite instability in interval colon cancers.
        Gastroenterology. 2006; 131: 1700-1705
        • Arain M.A.
        • Sawhney M.
        • Sheikh S.
        • et al.
        CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2010; 105: 1189-1195
        • Patel S.G.
        • Ahnen D.J.
        Prevention of interval colorectal cancers: what every clinician needs to know.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 12: 7-15
        • Tollivoro T.A.
        • Jensen C.D.
        • Marks A.R.
        • et al.
        Index colonoscopy-related risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 89: 168-176
        • Hewett D.G.
        • Rex D.K.
        The big picture.
        Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am. 2015; 25: 403-413
        • Sanduleanu S.
        • Masclee A.M.
        • Meijer G.A.
        Interval cancers after colonoscopy—insights and recommendations.
        Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 9: 550-554
        • Keswani R.N.
        • Yadlapati R.
        • Gleason K.M.
        • et al.
        Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110: 1134-1139
        • Doubeni C.A.
        • Fedewa S.A.
        • Levin T.R.
        • et al.
        Modifiable failures in the colorectal cancer screening process and their association with risk of death.
        Gastroenterology. 2019; 156: 63-74
        • Duloy A.M.
        • Kaltenbach T.R.
        • Keswani R.N.
        Assessing colon polypectomy competency and its association with established quality metrics.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87: 635-644
        • Kahi C.J.
        • Ballard D.
        • Shah A.S.
        • et al.
        Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2013; 77: 925-931
        • Kaminski M.F.
        • Wieszczy P.
        • Rupinski M.
        • et al.
        Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death.
        Gastroenterology. 2017; 153: 98-105
        • Buchner A.M.
        • Shahid M.W.
        • Heckman M.G.
        • et al.
        High-definition colonoscopy detects colorectal polyps at a higher rate than standard white-light colonoscopy.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8: 364-370
        • Radaelli F.
        • Paggi S.
        • Hassan C.
        • et al.
        Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme.
        Gut. 2017; 66: 270-277

      Linked Article

      • Connecting colonoscopy quality improvement initiatives with reduced rates of interval colorectal cancers
        Gastrointestinal EndoscopyVol. 92Issue 2
        • Preview
          The dominant strategy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the United States has been opportunistic colonoscopy. CRC incidence and mortality rates have declined since the introduction of screening programs; yet, it remains the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.1,2 For many years, variations in the efficacy to prevent CRC incidence and mortality have been well described in colonoscopy screening studies. For instance, Baxter et al3 showed a total reduction in all CRC-related deaths of 31%, but in that Canadian cohort, colonoscopy failed to show a beneficial effect in preventing death resulting from CRC of the right segment of the colon.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF