Comparing the resource implications of old and new colorectal adenoma surveillance guidelines in Australia

Author:

Ow Tsai‐Wing1ORCID,Angelica Bianca2,Burn Sophie1,Chu Matthew3,Lee Shawn Z.3ORCID,Lin Richard1,Tran Vy1,Iyngkaran Guru4,Bampton Peter1,Sukocheva Olga1,Tse Edmund1,Rayner Chris K.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Royal Adelaide Hospital Adelaide South Australia Australia

2. Department of Gastroenterology Royal Darwin Hospital Darwin Northern Territory Australia

3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Adelaide South Australia Australia

4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne Victoria Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe latest update to the Australian adenoma surveillance guideline in 2018 introduced a novel risk stratification system with updated surveillance recommendations. The resource implications of adopting this new system are unclear.AimsTo quanitfy the resource demands of adopting new over old adenoma surveillance guidelines.MethodsWe studied data from 2443 patients undergoing colonoscopies, in which a clinically significant lesion was identified in their latest, or previous procedure(s) across five Australian hospitals. We excluded procedures with inflammatory bowel disease, new or prior history of colorectal cancer or resection, inadequate bowel preparation and incomplete procedures. Old and new Australian surveillance intervals were calculated according to the number, size and histological characteristics of lesions identified. We used these data to compare the rate of procedures according to each guideline.ResultsBased on the procedures for 766 patients, the new surveillance guidelines significantly increased the number of procedures allocated an interval of 1 year (relative risk (RR): 1.57, P = 0.009) and 10 years (RR: 3.83, P < 0.00001) and reduced those allocated to half a year (RR: 0.08, P = 0.00219), 3 years (RR: 0.51, P < 0.00001) and 5 years (RR: 0.59, P < 0.00001). Overall, this reduced the relative number of surveillance procedures by 21% over 10 years (25.92 vs 32.78 procedures/100 patient‐years), which increased to 22% after excluding patients 75 or older at the time of surveillance (19.9 vs 25.65 procedures/100 patient‐years).ConclusionThe adoption of the latest Australian adenoma surveillance guidelines can reduce demand for surveillance colonoscopy by more than a fifth (21–22%) over 10 years.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Internal Medicine

Reference17 articles.

1. Barclay K Leggett B Macrae F Bourke M EeH.Cancer Council Australia Surveillance Colonoscopy Guidelines Working Party. Guidelines: colorectal cancer/colonoscopy surveillance/colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy. Clinical practice guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia. Version URL:https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=200665 [cited 2022 Oct 5]. Available from URL:https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Colorectal_cancer/Colonoscopy_surveillance

2. Individual, health system, and contextual barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic metareview

3. Assessing the impact of the National Health and Medical Research Council polyp surveillance guidelines on compliance with surveillance intervals at two public hospitals;Fitzsimmons T;ANZ J Surg,2018

4. Increasing rates of SSA/P detection in a large open-access Australian colonoscopy cohort

5. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3