The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review
- 229 Downloads
Colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death and an important cause of morbidity. The natural history of carcinogenesis, via the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, permits screening, which reduces the relative risk of mortality by up to 16%. The efficacy of a screening programme is limited by the growth of interval colorectal cancers between screening examinations. Quantifying the rate of interval cancers and delineating contributing endoscopic factors are crucial to maximise the benefit of a screening program.
A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Electronic databases were interrogated with a considered search strategy, and reference lists of retrieved papers were surveyed. For inclusion, studies included the rate of interval cancer (stated or calculated) and reported at least one of a predefined list of endoscopy characteristics. The primary outcome was to establish the rate of interval cancers. The secondary outcome was to determine the association between endoscopy quality measures and interval cancers.
The search yielded 2067 papers. Seventy-six full text papers were reviewed. Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 117,793 colon cancers, 7281 of which were interval lesions, giving an overall rate of 6.2%. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of the endoscopist performing the index operation was the most consistent endoscopy factor associated with development of interval cancers. The impact of setting, volume and bowel preparation varied between papers.
Interval cancers reduce the efficacy of colorectal screening programmes. Ensuring the quality of the endoscopy process, specifically by increasing the ADR of practitioners, is crucial to the reduction of the rate of interval cancers.
KeywordsInterval cancer Post-colonoscopy cancer Colorectal cancer Screening
Paul J Murphy, Information Specialist, RCSI Library.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Towler B, Watson E (2007) Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):Cd001216Google Scholar
- 13.Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Levin TR, Lieberman D, Robertson DJ (2017) Colorectal Cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 153(1):307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Gotfried J, Bernstein M, Ehrlich AC, Friedenberg FK (2015) Administrative database research overestimates the rate of interval Colon Cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 49(6):483–490Google Scholar
- 33.Morris EJA, Rutter MD, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, Valori R (2015) Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut 64(8):1248–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, Kraszewska E, Kobiela J, Franczyk R, Rupinska M, Kocot B, Chaber-Ciopinska A, Pachlewski J, Polkowski M, Regula J (2017) Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal Cancer and death. Gastroenterology 153(1):98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Denis B, Sauleau EA, Gendre I, Exbrayat C, Piette C, Dancourt V, Foll Y, Hadad HA, Bailly L, Perrin P (2014) The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy: a population-based cohort study. Dig Liver Dis 46(2):176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar