Colorectal cancer screening program using FIT: quality of colonoscopy varies according to hospital type

Author:

Portillo Isabel1,Idigoras Isabel1,Bilbao Isabel1,Arana-Arri Eunate2,Fernández-Landa María José3,Hurtado Jose Luis4,Sarasaqueta Cristina5,Bujanda Luis6,

Affiliation:

1. Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Coordination Center, Bilbao, Spain

2. BioCruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, Spain

3. Basurto-Bilbao Health Organization, Osakidetza-Basque Health Service, Bilbao, Spain

4. Araba Health Organization, Osakidetza-Basque Health Service, Vitoria, Spain

5. Hospital Universitario Donostia/Instituto Biodonostia, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), San Sebastián, Spain

6. Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Biodonostia, University of Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepaticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), San Sebastián, Spain

Abstract

Abstract Background and study aims To compare the quality of colonoscopy in a population-based coordinated program of colorectal cancer screening according to type of hospital (academic or non-academic). Patients and methods Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT (≥ 20 ug Hb/g feces) between January 2009 and September 2016 were prospectively included at five academic and seven non-academic public hospitals. Screening colonoscopy quality indicators considered were adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, complications and bowel preparation quality. Results A total of 48,759 patients underwent colonoscopy, 34,616 (80 %) in academic hospitals and 14,143 in non-academic hospitals. Among these cases, 19,942 (37.1 %) advanced adenomas and 2,607 (5.3 %) colorectal cancers (CRCs) were detected, representing a total of 22,549 (46.2 %) cases of advanced neoplasia. The adenoma detection rate was 64 %, 63.1 % in academic hospitals and 66.4 % in non-academic hospitals (P < 0.001). Rates of advanced adenoma detection, cecal intubation and adequate colonic preparation were 45.8 %, 96.2 % and 88.3 %, respectively, and in all cases were lower (implying worse quality care) in academic hospitals (45.3 % vs 48.7 %; odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.84 – 0.91; 95.9 % vs 97 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.38 – 0.69; and 86.4 % vs 93 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.45 – 0.5; respectively; P < 0.001 in all cases). In 13 patients, all in the academic hospital group, CRC was diagnosed after colonoscopy (0.26 cases × 1000 colonoscopies). Rates of CRC treated by endoscopy were similar in both types of hospital (30 %). The rate of severe complication was 1.2 % (602 patients), with no significant differences by hospital type: bleeding occurred in 1/147 colonoscopies and perforation in 1/329. One patient died within 30 days after screening colonoscopy. Conclusions The quality of colonoscopy was better in non-academic hospitals. The rate of detection of advanced neoplasia was higher in non-academic hospitals and correlated with the rate of post-colonoscopy CRC.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Gastroenterology,Medicine (miscellaneous)

Reference30 articles.

1. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer;M F Kaminski;N Engl J Med,2010

2. Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening;R Jover;Endoscopy,2012

3. Population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes using a faecal immunochemical test: should faecal haemoglobin cut-offs differ by age and sex?;E Arana-Arri;BMC Cancer,2017

4. Evaluation of the colorectal cancer screening Programme in the Basque Country (Spain) and its effectiveness based on the Miscan-colon model;I Idigoras;BMC Public Health,2017

5. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: Overview and introduction to the full Supplement publication;L Von Karsa;Endoscopy,2013

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