Overuse of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance

Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program

Background and study aims The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on adherence to surveillance protocols for screening-positive individuals. We evaluated adherence in the Danish population-based screening program and estimated the volume of diagnostic resources required to achieve this adherence. Patients and methods In this register- and population-based study, we included individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening from 2014 to 2017 and followed them until mid-2022. All endoscopic, imaging, and surgical procedures performed at public and private hospitals were identified. Adherence to national protocols was reported in terms of proportions and timeliness. Use of diagnostic and surveillance procedures was estimated during a 4-year post-screening period. Results Among 82,221 individuals with a positive FIT test, 84% had a baseline colonoscopy within 1 month. After removal of intermediate or high-risk adenomas, 12% and 6%, respectively, did not have any follow-up. Only ~50% had timely surveillance. Approximately 10% to 20%, depending on their referral diagnosis, did not have a second surveillance colonoscopy. In addition, 12% with a negative colonoscopy had a second colonoscopy within 4 years. Conclusions High adherence to baseline colonoscopy after positive FIT-screening is followed by lower adherence throughout the adenoma surveillance program. Better adherence to the guidelines could potentially improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the screening program.

Appropriateness of recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy - a comparison of adherence to the 2012 and 2020 USMSTF guidelines

Background

Screening colonoscopy detects precancerous polyps, which when resected, prevents colon cancer. Recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy are based on the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force guidelines (USMSTF).

Aim

to examine provider recommendations based on 2012 and 2020 USMSTF guidelines.

Methods

A prospective analysis was performed to examine provider recommendations for index screening and surveillance colonoscopy from March 2022 to January 2023. Procedures with unknown histology or unsatisfactory bowel preparation were excluded. We recorded polyp morphology, histology, and subsequent recommendations made by endoscopists, to compare to the USMSTF guidelines.

Results

241 patients were included, with 371 endoscopies reviewed. For index screening colonoscopies, 86%, performed between 2012 and 2020, adhered to 2012 guidelines, while 71%, performed after 2020, adhered to the 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, 62% from 2012 and 2020, and 50% after 2020, adhered to the 2012 and 2020 guidelines, respectively (P < 0.001). For polyp types, recommendations after index colonoscopies showed low-risk adenoma (LRA) had 88% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 73% adherence to 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, LRA had 73% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 42% adherence to 2020 guidelines (P < 0.001). Recommendations after index colonoscopy showed high-risk adenoma (HRA) had 79% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 63% adherence to 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, HRA had 88% adherence to the 2012 guidelines versus 69% adherence to 2020 guidelines (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Adherence declined for the introduction of 2020 guidelines and was poorer after 2nd surveillance exams. Increasing the evidence for interval recommendations may increase guideline adherence.

Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Surveillance colonoscopy decreases colorectal cancer mortality; however, lesions are occasionally missed. Although an appropriate surveillance interval is indicated, variations may occur in the methods used, such as scope manipulation or observation. Therefore, individual endoscopists may miss certain areas. This study aimed to verify the effectiveness of performing repeat colonoscopies with a different endoscopist from the initial procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a database of 8093 consecutive colonoscopies performed in the Omori Red Cross Hospital from January 1st 2018 to June 30th 2021. Data from repeat total colonoscopies performed within three months were collected to assess missed lesions. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the two examinations were performed by different endoscopists (group D) or the same endoscopist (group S). The primary outcome in both groups was the missed lesion detection rate (MLDR).

RESULTS

Overall, 205 eligible patients were analyzed. In total, 102 and 103 patients were enrolled in groups D and S, respectively. The MLDR was significantly higher in group D (61.8% vs. 31.1%, P < 0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the detection of missed lesions identified performance by the different endoscopists (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.81-6.30), and sufficient withdrawal time (> 6 min) (odds ratio, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.12-8.61) as significant variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our study showed a significant improvement in the detection of missed lesions when performed by different endoscopists. When performing repeat colonoscopy, it is desirable that a different endoscopist perform the second colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Omori Red Cross Hospital on November 28, 2022 (approval number:22-43).

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer in the USA: a prospective cohort study

Background

Effective risk stratification tools for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer (PPCRC) are lacking. We aimed to develop an effective risk stratification tool for the prediction of PPCRC in three large population-based cohorts and to validate the tool in a clinical cohort.

Methods

Leveraging the integrated endoscopic, histopathologic and epidemiologic data in three U.S population-based cohorts of health professional (the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) I, II and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS)), we developed a risk score to predict incident PPCRC among 26,741 patients with a polypectomy between 1986 and 2017. We validated the PPCRC score in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) Colonoscopy Cohort (Boston, Massachusetts, U.S) of 76,603 patients with a polypectomy between 2007 and 2018. In all four cohorts, we collected detailed data on patients' demographics, endoscopic history, polyp features, and lifestyle factors at polypectomy. The outcome, incidence of PPCRC, was assessed by biennial follow-up questionnaires in the NHS/HPFS cohorts, and through linkage to the Massachusetts Cancer Registry in the MGB cohort. In all four cohorts, individuals who were diagnosed with CRC or died before baseline or within six months after baseline were excluded. We used Cox regression to calculate the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and assessed the discrimination using C-statistics and reclassification using the Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI).

Findings

During a median follow-up of 12.8 years (interquartile range (IQR): 9.3, 16.7) and 5.1 years (IQR: 2.7, 7.8) in the NHS/HPFS and MGB cohorts, we documented 220 and 241 PPCRC cases, respectively. We identified a PPCRC risk score based on 11 predictors. In the validation cohort, the PPCRC risk score showed a strong association with PPCRC risk (HR for high vs. low, 3.55, 95% CI, 2.59-4.88) and demonstrated a C-statistic (95% CI) of 0.75 (0.70-0.79), and was discriminatory even within the low- and high-risk polyp groups (C-statistic, 0.73 and 0.71, respectively) defined by the current colonoscopy surveillance recommendations, leading to a NRI of 45% (95% CI, 36-54%) for patients with PPCRC.

Interpretation

We developed and validated a risk stratification model for PPCRC that may be useful to guide tailored colonoscopy surveillance. Further work is needed to determine the optimal surveillance interval and test the added value of other predictors of PPCRC beyond those included in the current study, along with implementation studies.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey

INTRODUCTION

There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults.

METHODS

In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles.

RESULTS

Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

DISCUSSION

Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.

Colonoscopy, imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen: Comparison of guideline adherence to surveillance strategies in patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-third of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience recurrence after resection. Adherence to surveillance guidelines largely dictates efficacy in early detection of recurrence. We sought to assess and compare adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy, imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled adherence to each surveillance strategy was assessed for CEA, imaging, and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall 14 studies (55,895 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Adherence to colonoscopy guidelines was the highest (70%, 95%CI 67-73), followed by imaging (63%, 95%CI 47-80), and CEA (54%; 95%CI 42-66). Among 7 (50%) studies that examined adherence to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, compliance with colonoscopy was the highest (73%; 95% CI 70-76), followed by imaging (58%; 95% CI 37-78), and CEA (45%; 95%CI 37-52). Of note, guideline adherence to CEA testing was much lower than colonoscopy among patients with colon (OR 0.21; 95%CI 0.20-0.22) and rectal cancer (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.23-0.28) (both p < 0.05). This was also noted when compared with imaging recommendations among older patients (OR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.42-0.93) and patients with stage II, (OR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84) and stage III disease (OR = 0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.94) (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While guideline adherence to postoperative surveillance with colonoscopy was high, adherence to CEA testing and imaging surveillance strategies was markedly lower following CRC resection. Future studies should investigate avenues to improve compliance with surveillance guidelines among health care providers and patients to optimize postoperative follow-up for CRC.

An Analysis of 5 Years of Randomized Trials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Reveals 52 Medical Reversals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

One manifestation of low-value medical practice is the medical reversal, a practice in widespread use that, once subjected to a randomized controlled trial (RCT), is found to be no better-or worse-than a prior established standard of care. We aimed to determine the prevalence of medical reversals in gastroenterology (GI) journals and characterize these reversals.

METHODS

We searched the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology, and the Journal of Hepatology, reviewing studies published in 2015-2019. We identified RCTs that tested an established clinical practice and produced negative results, considered tentative reversals. Any systematic review or meta-analysis that included the article was categorized as confirming the reversal, refuting the reversal, or providing insufficient data.

RESULTS

During the 5-year period, we identified 5,898 original articles, of which 212 tested an established practice and 52 were categorized as unrefuted medical reversals (25% of articles testing standard of care). Of the reversals, 21 (40%) tested procedures and devices, 15 (29%) tested medications, and 8 (15%) tested vitamins/supplements/diet. Twenty-three (44%) considered the alimentary tract, 12 (23%) considered the liver, pancreas, or biliary tract, and 17 (33%) considered endoscopy. Thirty-eight (73%) were funded exclusively by non-industry sources.

CONCLUSION

This review reveals a total of 52 reversals across all subfields of GI and medical, procedural, screening, and diagnostic interventions, occurring in 25% of randomized trials testing an established practice. More research is needed to determine the optimal way to engage stakeholders and remove reversed practices from medical care.

Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study

Background

Optimal intervals between repeat colonoscopies could improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. We evaluated: (a) concordance between clinician and guideline recommended colonoscopy screening intervals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (b) clinician opinions about the utility of an electronic decision-making tool to aid in recommending screening intervals, and (c) the initial use of a decision-making smartphone/web-based application.

Methods

Clinician endoscopists and primary care providers participated in four focus groups (N = 22). We asked participating clinicians to evaluate up to 12 hypothetical scenarios and compared their recommended screening interval to those of North American guidelines. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in agreement with guidelines. We developed a decision-making tool and evaluated it via a pilot study with 6 endoscopists.

Result

53% of clinicians made recommendations that agreed with guidelines in ≤ 50% of the hypothetical scenarios. Themes from focus groups included barriers to using a decision-making tool: extra time to use it, less confidence in the results of the tool over their own judgement, and having access to the information required by the tool (e.g., family history). Most were willing to try a tool if it was quick and easy to use. Endoscopists participating in the tool pilot study recommended screening intervals discordant with guidelines 35% of the time. When their recommendation differed from that of the tool, they usually endorsed their own over the guideline.

Conclusions

Endoscopists are overconfident and inconsistent with applying guidelines in their polyp surveillance interval recommendations. Use of a decision tool may improve knowledge and application of guidelines. A change in practice may require that the tool be coupled with continuing education about evidence for improved outcomes if guidelines are followed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z.

An Estimate of the US Rate of Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).

RESULTS

A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed.

Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations.

Methods

We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations.

Results

Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence.

Conclusion

Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Pediatric Endoscopy Reporting Elements: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality procedure reports are a cornerstone of high-quality pediatric endoscopy as they ensure the clear communication of procedural events and outcomes, guide patient care and facilitate continuous quality improvement. The aim of this document is to outline standardized reporting elements that achieved international consensus as requirements for high-quality pediatric endoscopy procedure reports.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used Delphi methodology to identify key elements that should be found in all pediatric endoscopy reports. Item reduction was attained through iterative rounds of anonymized online voting using a 6-point scale. Responses were analyzed after each round and items were excluded from subsequent rounds if ≤50% of panelists rated them as 5 ("agree moderately") or 6 ("agree strongly"). Reporting elements that ≥70% of panelists rated as "agree moderately" or "agree strongly" were considered to have achieved consensus.

RESULTS

Twenty-six PEnQuIN group members from 25 centers internationally rated 63 potential reporting elements that were generated from a systematic literature review and the Delphi panelists. The response rates were 100% for all three survey rounds. Thirty reporting elements reached consensus as essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that the PEnQuIN Reporting Elements for pediatric endoscopy be universally employed across all endoscopists, procedures and facilities as a foundational means of ensuring high-quality endoscopy services, while facilitating quality improvement activities in pediatric endoscopy.

Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy).

RESULTS

Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85-9.49; p < 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24-4.28; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.

Renal function in children with a congenital solitary functioning kidney: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Abnormal renal development that results in lack of function or development of one of two kidneys is known as congenital solitary functioning kidney (CSFK). Two well characterized sub-categories of CFSK are unilateral renal agenesis (URA) and multicystic dysplastic kidney (MCDK). This systematic review sought to evaluate the change in renal function in children ≤18 years old with a CSFK as a result of URA or MCDK.

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE and Embase was conducted (1946 to July 13, 2020). All relevant articles were retrieved and evaluated based on pre-selected criteria by two independent researchers. Data was then extracted from variables of interest and conflicts were resolved by a third researcher. The primary outcome was renal function, and the secondary outcomes were proteinuria and hypertension.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were included, of which 49% (n = 22) were retrospective and/or 58% (n = 26) were cohort studies. A combined total of 2148 and 885 patients were diagnosed with MCDK or URA, respectively. The proportion of children with worsened renal function at follow-up was found to be 8.4% (95% CI: 5.2%-13.4%). Among the studies reporting renal function as a group mean or median at follow-up, 84% (21/25) had a GFR/CrCl above 90 (mL/min/1.73  m²/ml/min). In terms of secondary outcomes, the proportion of children with proteinuria and hypertension was found to be 10.1% (95% CI: 6.9%-14.6%) and 7.4% (95% CI: 5.0%-10.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The risk of developing proteinuria (10.1%), hypertension (7.4%), and/or worsened renal function (8.4%) for children with CFSK as a result of MCDK or URA is low. However, the level of evidence in the literature is weak. Further research is needed to identify the predisposing factors that may differentiate the small subset of children with CSFK at a higher risk of developing adverse renal outcomes.

Application of deep learning to predict advanced neoplasia using big clinical data in colorectal cancer screening of asymptomatic adults

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We aimed to develop a deep learning model for the prediction of the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) in asymptomatic adults, based on which colorectal cancer screening could be customized.

METHODS

We collected data on 26 clinical and laboratory parameters, including age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, complete blood count, blood chemistry, and tumor marker, from 70,336 first-time colonoscopy screening recipients. For reference, we used a logistic regression (LR) model with nine variables manually selected from the 26 variables. A deep neural network (DNN) model was developed using all 26 variables. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the models were compared in a randomly split validation group.

RESULTS

In comparison with the LR model (AUC, 0.724; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.684 to 0.765), the DNN model (AUC, 0.760; 95% CI, 0.724 to 0.795) demonstrated significantly improved performance with respect to the prediction of ACRN (p < 0.001). At a sensitivity of 90%, the specificity significantly increased with the application of the DNN model (41.0%) in comparison with the LR model (26.5%) (p < 0.001), indicating that the colonoscopy workload required to detect the same number of ACRNs could be reduced by 20%.

CONCLUSION

The application of DNN to big clinical data could significantly improve the prediction of ACRNs in comparison with the LR model, potentially realizing further customization by utilizing large quantities and various types of biomedical information.

Clinical decision-making framework against over-testing based on modeling implicit evaluation criteria

Different statistical methods include various subjective criteria that can prevent over-testing. However, no unified framework that defines generalized objective criteria for various diseases is available to determine the appropriateness of diagnostic tests recommended by doctors. We present the clinical decision-making framework against over-testing based on modeling the implicit evaluation criteria (CDFO-MIEC). The CDFO-MIEC quantifies the subjective evaluation process using statistics-based methods to identify over-testing. Furthermore, it determines the test's appropriateness with extracted entities obtained via named entity recognition and entity alignment. More specifically, implicit evaluation criteria are defined-namely, the correlation among the diagnostic tests, symptoms, and diseases, confirmation function, and exclusion function. Additionally, four evaluation strategies are implemented by applying statistical methods, including the multi-label k-nearest neighbor and the conditional probability algorithms, to model the implicit evaluation criteria. Finally, they are combined into a classification and regression tree to make the final decision. The CDFO-MIEC also provides interpretability by decision conditions for supporting each clinical decision of over-testing. We tested the CDFO-MIEC on 2,860 clinical texts obtained from a single respiratory medicine department in China with the appropriate confirmation by physicians. The dataset was supplemented with random inappropriate tests. The proposed framework excelled against the best competing text classification methods with a Mean_F₁ of 0.9167. This determined whether the appropriate and inappropriate tests were properly classified. The four evaluation strategies captured the features effectively, and they were imperative. Therefore, the proposed CDFO-MIEC is feasible because it exhibits high performance and can prevent over-testing.

A Quality Improvement Intervention Leveraging a Safety Net Model for Surveillance Colonoscopy Completion

Systems to address follow-up testing of clinically positive surveillance colonoscopy results are lacking. The impact of an ambulatory safety net (ASN) intervention on rates of colonoscopy completion was assessed. The ASN team identified patients using an electronic registry, conducted patient outreach, coordinated care, and tracked colonoscopy completion. In all, 701 patients were captured in the ASN program: 58.1% (407/701) had possible barriers to follow-up colonoscopy completion, with rates of 80.1% (236/294) if no barrier, and 40.9% (287/701) overall. Colonoscopy completion likelihood increased with prior polypectomy (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.3), and decreased with White race (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9), increased inpatient visits (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9), more outreach attempts (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7), and fair/poor/inadequate preparation (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) in logistic regression models. An ASN model for quality improvement promotes colonoscopy completion rates and identifies patient barriers.

Determinants for the use and de-implementation of low-value care in health care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC.

AIM

The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group.

RESULTS

In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSION

The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and professionals' fear of malpractice appear to be more prominent determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. Thus, existing implementation determinant frameworks may require adaptation to be transferable to de-implementation. Strategies to reduce the use of LVC should specifically consider determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC.

REGISTRATION

The review has not been registered.

Follow-up of 3 Million Persons Undergoing Colonoscopy in Germany: Utilization of Repeat Colonoscopies and Polypectomies Within 10 Years

INTRODUCTION

Given the sparsity of longitudinal studies on colonoscopy use, we quantified utilization of repeat colonoscopy within 10 years and the proportion of persons with polypectomies at first repeat colonoscopy using a large German claims database.

METHODS

Based on the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database, we identified persons who underwent colonoscopy between 2006 and 2015 (index colonoscopy) and assessed colonoscopies and polypectomies during follow-up. We defined 3 subcohorts based on available procedure/diagnosis codes at index colonoscopy: persons with snare polypectomy, which is reimbursable for lesions ≥5 mm in size (cohort 1), with a forceps polypectomy (cohort 2), and without such procedures/diagnoses (cohort 3). We stratified all analyses by diagnostic vs screening index colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, we included 3,076,657 persons (cohort 1-3: 15%, 13%, 72%). Among persons with screening index colonoscopy (30%), the proportions with a repeat colonoscopy within 10 years in cohorts 1, 2, and 3 were 78%, 66%, and 43%, respectively, and a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy was performed in 27%, 17%, and 12%, respectively. In cohort 1, 32% of persons with a (first) repeat colonoscopy after 9 years had a snare polypectomy (after 3 years: 25%). Among persons with diagnostic index colonoscopies, 80%, 78%, and 65% had a repeat colonoscopy, and 27%, 17%, and 10% had a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Our study suggests substantial underuse of repeat colonoscopy among persons with previous snare polypectomy and overuse among lower risk groups. One-quarter of persons with a snare polypectomy at baseline had another snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy Quality and Adherence to Postpolypectomy Surveillance Guidelines in an Underinsured Clinic System

Background

Delivery of high-quality colonoscopy and adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines is essential to a high-quality screening program, especially in safety net systems with limited resources. We sought to assess colonoscopy quality and ensure appropriate surveillance in a network of safety net practices.

Methods

We identified age-eligible patients ages 50-75 within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic system with evidence of colonoscopy in preceding 10 years. We performed chart reviews to assess key aspects of colonoscopy quality: bowel preparation quality, evidence of cecal intubation, cecal withdrawal time, and the adenoma detection rate. We then utilized established guidelines to assess and revise surveillance colonoscopy intervals, determine whether appropriate surveillance had taken place, and schedule overdue patients as appropriate.

Results

Of 26,394 age-eligible patients, a total of 3,970 patients had evidence of prior colonoscopy and 1,709 charts were selected and reviewed. Mean age was 57, 54% identified as women and 51% identified as Hispanic. Of 1709 colonoscopies reviewed, 77% had data on bowel preparation, and of those, 85% had adequate preparation quality. Cecal intubation was documented in 89% of procedures. Adequate cecal withdrawal time was documented in 59% of those with documented cecal intubation. Overall adenoma detection rate was 42%. Initial surveillance interval was clearly stated in 72% (n = 1238) of procedures. Of these, initial recommended intervals were too short in 24.5% (n = 304) and too long in 3.6% (n = 45). A total of 132 patients (10.7%) were overdue for appropriate surveillance and were referred for follow-up colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Overall, the quality of screening colonoscopy was high, but reporting was incomplete. We found fair adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines, with significant opportunities to extend surveillance intervals and improve adherence to best practices.

Primary Care Clinician Decision-Making Around Surveillance Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Prior Adenomas

INTRODUCTION

While guidelines recommend against routine colorectal cancer screening in adults >75 years and/or those with limited life expectancies, there is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies following prior adenoma detection should stop. How primary care clinicians weigh the potential risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured in-person interviews with 30 primary care clinicians from 21 clinics in Maryland. We asked how clinicians decided whether to continue or stop surveillance colonoscopies in older adults (65+ years) with prior adenomas. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 investigators using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants described a range of decision-making approaches. Some deferred to specialists because they did not feel confident making decisions about stopping surveillance in light of the higher cancer risk involved. Some took a more active role and discussed the decision with patients and/or specialists. Other clinicians felt comfortable stopping surveillance colonoscopies and made these decisions based on patient age, comorbidities, or life expectancy.

DISCUSSION

We found a range of decision-making approaches among primary care clinicians on whether to continue surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas. Separate bodies of evidence currently exist on how prior adenoma characteristics influence colorectal cancer risk and on how older age and declining health influence the benefit/harm balance of screening. Information is lacking on the benefits and harms of surveillance in older adults with prior adenomas. Developing the evidence to address this knowledge gap is critically needed to inform clinical decision making.

Colorectal Cancer Litigation: 1988-2018

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) malpractice suits over the past 20 years in the United States and evaluate the most common allegations, lawsuit outcomes, indemnity payment amounts, patient outcomes, and physician characteristics.

METHODS

The malpractice section of VerdictSearch, a legal database, was queried for cases in which CRC was a principle component of the lawsuit. Legal notes were used to characterize plaintiff allegations, verdict, financial compensation, and case year. Clinical history for each case were analyzed for patient demographics, medical outcomes, and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 240 CRC-related malpractice cases (1988-2018) were collected, resulting in defense (n = 101, 42.1%), plaintiff (n = 37, 15.4%), or settlement (n = 96, 40%) verdict. The primary defendants were often primary care physicians (n = 61, 25.4%) and gastroenterologists (n = 55, 22.9%). Most common plaintiff allegations are failure to perform diagnostic colonoscopy for patients with symptoms (n = 67, 27.9%), failure to perform screening colonoscopy according to screening guidelines (n = 46, 19.2%), or failure to detect CRC with colonoscopy (n = 45, 18.7%). A common alleged error in diagnosis before the median year of 2005 was failure to detect CRC by the noncolonoscopic methods (<2005: n = 22, 24.2%; >2005: n = 3, 3.09%).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff-alleged errors in diagnosis are consistently the most common reason for CRC malpractice litigation in the past 20 years, whereas specific diagnostic allegations (i.e., failure to screen vs failure to detect) and methods used for surveillance may vary over time. It is important to identify such pitfalls in CRC screening and explore areas for improvement to maximize patient care and satisfaction and reduce physician malpractice litigations.

Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States Before and After Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is major cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Screening, however, is suboptimal and there are disparities in outcomes. After health policy changes and national efforts to increase rates of screening and address inequities, we aimed to examine progress towards eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in CRC screening.

METHODS

We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of average-risk adults (age 50-75 years) included in the behavioral risk factors surveillance system survey. The main outcome was CRC screening status. We determined screening rates overall and by race and ethnicity (1 variable) for each survey year from 2008 through 2016 and used Joinpoint analyses to determine significant trends in rates over time by race and ethnicity. We also examined screening modalities used overall and by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 1,089,433 respondents. Screening uptake was 61.1% in 2008 and 67.6% in 2016 (P < .001); it was highest among whites and lowest among Hispanics. Only whites, Hispanics, and Asians had significantly higher screening rates in each study year (P < .001). Despite increasing rates among Hispanics, the screening rate disparity between whites and Hispanics was 17% at the end of the study period. Screening rates in blacks did not change with time and were 4.0% lower than the rate in whites in 2016. Other racial and ethnic groups had varying levels of improvement with time. Colonoscopy was the most common modality each year.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cross-sectional analysis of average-risk adults, we found that although rates of CRC screening have increased overall since 2008, they have increased disproportionately in each racial and ethnic group, and disparities in screening uptake persist.

Patients seeking information about colonoscopy - lessons learned from Google

Introduction

Every year in the USA over 14 million colonoscopies are performed. It requires high-quality examinations as well as a relevant information strategy. Colonoscopy compliance is not satisfactory, which to some extent might be related to patients' attitudes towards colonoscopy, which are based on information and emotions.

Aim

In the current study we addressed the questions of what kind of information people seek and get when they search the Internet for "colonoscopy".

Material and methods

Using the Google Trends web facility we analysed search results of "colonoscopy", related searches, and annual and weekly search trends. Fields of interest analysis was performed based on the related searches.

Results

Patients are generally offered quality data on the first result page of a Google search biased only by Wikipedia scoring first on the result list. The number of "colonoscopy" searches is stable over the week with a significant decrease on weekends, and stable over the year with significant decrease around Thanksgiving day and in the Christmas/New Year's Eve Period. The most common field of search is colonoscopy preparation, thus underlining the importance of this part of colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Internet search provides abundant information on colonoscopy. In general, this information is accessible, preferred by patients, and of good quality. This should be kept in mind by healthcare providers while educating patients about colonoscopy.

Exploiting horizontal pleiotropy to search for causal pathways within a Mendelian randomization framework

In Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, variants that exert horizontal pleiotropy are typically treated as a nuisance. However, they could be valuable in identifying alternative pathways to the traits under investigation. Here, we develop MR-TRYX, a framework that exploits horizontal pleiotropy to discover putative risk factors for disease. We begin by detecting outliers in a single exposure-outcome MR analysis, hypothesising they are due to horizontal pleiotropy. We search across hundreds of complete GWAS summary datasets to systematically identify other (candidate) traits that associate with the outliers. We develop a multi-trait pleiotropy model of the heterogeneity in the exposure-outcome analysis due to pathways through candidate traits. Through detailed investigation of several causal relationships, many pleiotropic pathways are uncovered with already established causal effects, validating the approach, but also alternative putative causal pathways. Adjustment for pleiotropic pathways reduces the heterogeneity across the analyses.

Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarise the evidence on the prevalence of colorectal adenomas and cancers at a follow-up screening colonoscopy after negative index colonoscopy, stratified by interval between examinations and by sex.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Two investigators independently extracted characteristics and results of identified studies and performed standardised quality ratings.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies assessing the outcome of a follow-up colonoscopy among participants at average risk for colorectal cancer with a negative previous colonoscopy (no adenomas).

RESULTS

28 studies were identified, including 22 cohort studies, five cross sectional studies, and one case-control study. Findings for an interval between colonoscopies of one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years were reported by 17, 16, and three studies, respectively. Summary estimates of prevalences of any neoplasm were 20.7% (95% confidence interval 15.8% to 25.5%), 23.0% (18.0% to 28.0%), and 21.9% (14.9% to 29.0%) for one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years between colonoscopies. Corresponding summary estimates of prevalences of any advanced neoplasm were 2.8% (2.0% to 3.7%), 3.2% (2.2% to 4.1%), and 7.0% (5.3% to 8.7%). Seven studies also reported findings stratified by sex. Summary estimates stratified by interval and sex were consistently higher for men than for women.

CONCLUSIONS

Although detection of any neoplasms was observed in more than 20% of participants within five years of a negative screening colonoscopy, detection of advanced neoplasms within 10 years was rare. Our findings suggest that 10 year intervals for colonoscopy screening after a negative colonoscopy, as currently recommended, may be adequate, but more studies are needed to strengthen the empirical basis for pertinent recommendations and to investigate even longer intervals.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42019127842.

Yield and Practice Patterns of Surveillance Colonoscopy Among Older Adults: An Analysis of the GI Quality Improvement Consortium

OBJECTIVES

There is little guidance regarding when to stop surveillance colonoscopy in individuals with a history of adenomas or colorectal cancer (CRC). We evaluated both yield and recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy in a large cohort of older individuals undergoing colonoscopy, using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry.

METHODS

We analyzed the yield of colonoscopy in adults aged ≥75 years, comparing those who had an indication of surveillance as opposed to an indication of diagnostic or screening, stratified by 5-year age groups. Our primary outcome was CRC and advanced lesions. We also evaluated recommended follow-up intervals by age and findings.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2017, 376,686 colonoscopies were performed by 3,976 endoscopists at 628 sites, of which 43.2% were for surveillance. Detection of CRC among surveillance patients increased with age from 0.51% (age 75-79 years) to 1.8% (age ≥ 90 years); however, these risks were lower when compared with both the diagnostic and screening for the same age band (P < 0.0001). Yield of advanced lesions also increased by every 5-year interval of age across all groups by indication. Even at the most advanced ages and in those with nonadvanced findings, only a minority of patients were recommended for no further colonoscopy. For example, in patients aged 90 years and older with only low risk findings, 62.9% were recommended to repeat colonoscopy.

DISCUSSION

Surveillance colonoscopy is frequently recommended at advanced ages even when recent findings may be clinically insignificant. Further work is needed to develop guidelines to inform best practice around when to stop surveillance in older adults.

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer are at risk for colorectal cancer, but may not be up to date with colorectal cancer screening. We sought to determine whether a one-time recommendation about needing colorectal cancer screening using patient navigation (PN) was better than just receiving the recommendation only.

METHODS

Participants were FDRs of patients with Lynch syndrome-negative colorectal cancer from participating Ohio hospitals. FDRs from 259 families were randomized to a website intervention (528 individuals), which included a survey and personal colorectal cancer screening recommendation, while those from 254 families were randomized to the website plus telephonic PN intervention (515 individuals). Primary outcome was adherence to the personal screening recommendation (to get screened or not to get screened) received from the website. Secondary outcomes examined who benefited from adding PN.

RESULTS

At the end of the 14-month follow-up, 78.6% of participants were adherent to their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening with adherence similar between arms (P = 0.14). Among those who received a recommendation to have a colonoscopy immediately, the website plus PN intervention significantly increased the odds of receiving screening, compared with the website intervention (OR: 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-5.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of PN to a website intervention did not improve adherence to a colorectal cancer screening recommendation overall; however, the addition of PN was more effective in increasing adherence among FDRs who needed screening immediately.

IMPACT

These findings provide important information as to when the additional costs of PN are needed to assure colorectal cancer screening among those at high risk for colorectal cancer.

Trainees' knowledge and application of guideline recommendations for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance

BACKGROUND

Data shows that practicing physicians don't recommend colorectal (CRC) screening and surveillance as suggested by guidelines. We assessed knowledge of CRC guidelines in medical trainees.

METHODS

A survey assessing confidence and knowledge of published CRC guidelines was emailed to program directors (PDs) of Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education approved training programs in the United States. PDs were requested to forward it to trainees. We analyzed trainees' knowledge by answers to clinical vignettes and identification of factors required by guidelines for screening and post polypectomy colonoscopy interval. We compared confidence and knowledge by specialty.

RESULTS

586 trainees in internal medicine (159), family medicine and primary care (147), gastroenterology (114), general surgery (51), ob/gyn (78), urology (13), and colorectal surgery (13) responded. 97% reported following guidelines. 68% and 50% stated confidence recalling screening and surveillance guidelines, respectively. 16% and 8% correctly identified all factors and answered corresponding vignettes for screening and surveillance, respectively. Overall accuracy of screening ranged between 11-23% and was not different between specialties (p = 0.11) while significant differences were noted between specialties in surveillance knowledge (0-39%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

United States trainees' CRC screening and surveillance knowledge is poor. Measures are needed to enhance knowledge of CRC guidelines.

Development and validation of a 5-year mortality prediction model using regularized regression and Medicare data

PURPOSE

De-implementation of low-value services among patients with limited life expectancy is challenging. Robust mortality prediction models using routinely collected health care data can enhance health care stakeholders' ability to identify populations with limited life expectancy. We developed and validated a claims-based prediction model for 5-year mortality using regularized regression methods.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries age 66 or older with an office visit and at least 12 months of pre-visit continuous Medicare A/B enrollment were identified in 2008. Five-year mortality was assessed through 2013. Secondary outcomes included 30-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality. Claims-based predictors, including comorbidities and indicators of disability, frailty, and functional impairment, were selected using regularized logistic regression, applying the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) in a random 80% training sample. Model performance was assessed and compared with the Gagne comorbidity score in the 20% validation sample.

RESULTS

Overall, 183 204 (24%) individuals died. In addition to demographics, 161 indicators of comorbidity and function were included in the final model. In the validation sample, the c-statistic was 0.825 (0.823-0.828). Median-predicted probability of 5-year mortality was 14%; almost 4% of the cohort had a predicted probability greater than 80%. Compared with the Gagne score, the LASSO model led to improved 5-year mortality classification (net reclassification index = 9.9%; integrated discrimination index = 5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our claims-based model predicting 5-year mortality showed excellent discrimination and calibration, similar to the Gagne score model, but resulted in improved mortality classification. Regularized regression is a feasible approach for developing prediction tools that could enhance health care research and evaluation of care quality.

Patient Attitudes Toward Individualized Recommendations to Stop Low-Value Colorectal Cancer Screening

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommend an individualized approach in older adults that is informed by consideration of life expectancy and cancer risk. However, little is known about how patients perceive individualized screening recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To assess veterans' attitudes toward and comfort with cessation of low-value CRC screening (defined as screening in a patient for whom the benefit is expected to be small based on quantitative estimates from hypothetical risk calculators).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study included patients older than 50 years who had undergone prior screening colonoscopy with normal results at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. A total of 1500 surveys were mailed to potential participants from November 1, 2010, to January 1, 2012. Survey data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Response to the question, "If you personally had serious health problems that were likely to shorten your life and your doctor did not think screening would be of much benefit based on the calculator, how comfortable would you be with not getting any more screening colonoscopies?"

RESULTS

Of the 1500 surveys mailed, 85 were returned to sender, leaving 1415 potential respondents; 1054 of these respondents (median age range, 60-69 years; 884 [85.9%] white and 965 [94.2%] male) completed the survey (response rate, 74.5%). A total of 300 (28.7%) were not at all comfortable with cessation of low-value CRC screening, and 509 (49.3%) thought that age should never be used to decide when to stop screening. In addition, 332 (31.7%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use life expectancy calculators, and 255 (24.3%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use CRC risk calculators to guide these decisions. In ordered logistic regression analysis, factors associated with more comfort with screening cessation were (1) higher trust in physician (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), (2) higher perceived health status (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.23-1.61), and (3) higher barriers to screening (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Factors that were associated with less comfort with screening cessation included (1) greater perceived effectiveness of screening (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94) and (2) greater perceived threat of CRC (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that many veterans have strong preferences against screening cessation even when given detailed information about why the benefit may be low. Efforts to tailor screening recommendations may be met by resistance unless they are accompanied by efforts to address underlying perceptions about the benefit of screening.

Guideline Adherence to Colonoscopic Surveillance Intervals after Polypectomy in Korea: Results from a Nationwide Survey

Background/Aims

People around the world are increasingly choosing to undergo colorectal cancer screening via colonoscopy. As a result, guideline adherence to postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance has drawn increasing attention. The present study was performed to assess recognition and adherence to guidelines among primary care physicians and gastroenterologists and to identify characteristics associated with compliance.

Methods

A nationwide sample of primary care physicians employed at cancer screening facilities and registered members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were recruited. Participants were asked to complete a survey of six hypothetical clinical scenarios designed to assess their potential course of action in response to screening or follow-up colonoscopy results. Frequencies and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for guideline adherence were estimated.

Results

The proportions of doctors recommending shortened colonoscopy surveillance intervals for low- and high-risk adenomas were greater than 90% among primary physicians and were much lower among gastroenterologists. Guideline adherence was relatively good among groups of doctors who were young, had a specialty in gastroenterology, worked at tertiary hospitals, and cared for an appropriate number of patients.

Conclusions

The present study reveals a remaining discrepancy between practitioner recommendations and current guidelines for postpolypectomy surveillance. Several factors were shown to be related to guideline adherence, suggesting a need for appropriate control and continuing education or training programs among particular groups of practitioners.

Hydrogen Breath Testing Predicts Bowel Preparation Quality Prior to Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review

Background

This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of hydrogen breath testing as a predictor of bowel preparation.

Methods

Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov. Two investigators evaluated abstracts for inclusion criteria - report of correlation between hydrogen breath levels and bowel preparation quality, prospective design and non-emergent colonoscopy in adults. Included studies underwent duplicate data extraction using a standardized approach. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool assessed quality of the studies.

Results

One hundred fifty-nine publications were identified, and six unique studies met inclusion criteria. The number of patients analyzed ranged from 61 to 127. Three studies were performed in the USA, one in Japan and two in Italy. Three studies used a prebiotic in addition to a purgative, with the intention of enhancing the discriminating ability of hydrogen breath levels. Three studies assessed baseline hydrogen levels. In five of the six studies, hydrogen breath levels were predictive of inadequate bowel preparation. Suggested absolute hydrogen levels to distinguish adequate from inadequate bowel preparation ranged from 3 to 10 parts per million. Depending on the cutoff value, sensitivity ranged from 71% to 100% and specificity from 87% to 100%. There was significant heterogeneity among studies in breath testing protocol and breath analyzer used. Full-text studies had low risk of bias in most assessed domains.

Conclusion

Hydrogen breath levels predict bowel preparation adequacy but existing studies have significant limitations. Further studies should use standardized methods and consider the real-world practicality of self-administered home breath testing.

Computed Tomography Colonography Less Costly Than Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Commercially Insured Patients

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.

METHODS

Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.

RESULTS

In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce CRC incidence and mortality, but measuring screening adherence over time is challenging. We examined adherence using a novel measure characterizing the proportion of time covered (PTC) by screening tests.

METHODS

Eligible patients were age 50 to 60 years and followed at a large, safety-net health care system between January 2010 and September 2014. We estimated PTC as the number of days up to date with screening divided by the number of days from cohort entry until study end, CRC diagnosis, or death. We estimated mean and median PTC and used least-significant difference tests to assess differences in adherence by patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 18,257 patients, most were non-Hispanic black (40.5%) or Hispanic (34.9%) and/or female (62.4%). Approximately 40% (n = 7559) were never screened during the study period; the remaining 10,698 patients completed 19,105 screening examinations (14,481 fecal immunochemical tests [FITs], 4393 colonoscopies, 94 sigmoidoscopies, and 137 barium enemas). Overall, the mean PTC was 29.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6%-29.5%). Among those who completed at least one screening test (n = 10,698), the mean PTC was 49.0% (95% CI, 48.5%-49.5%). The most common reasons for non-adherence were lack of repeat FIT and no diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal results for the FIT. The mean PTC increased with the number of primary care visits (0 visits, 21%; 1 visit, 29%; 2-3 visits, 35%; ≥4 visits, 37%; all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PTC provides a reliable estimate of screening adherence, capturing breakdowns in the CRC screening process amenable to intervention. Repeat FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy are important intervention targets that may increase adherence in underserved populations.

Less Is More: A Minimalist Approach to Endoscopy

A substantial literature documents inappropriate usage of gastrointestinal endoscopy in a variety of clinical settings. Overusage of endoscopy appears to be common, and 30% or more of procedures performed in some clinical settings have questionable indications. The potential reasons for overuse of endoscopy are multiple, and include cancer phobia, fear of medical malpractice litigation, profit motive, the investigation of "incidentalomas" found on other imaging, and underappreciation of the delayed harms of endoscopy, among other reasons. Clinical guidelines, which should limit overuse of endoscopy, may instead serve to promote it, if authors opt to be "conservative," recommending endoscopy in situations of unclear utility. Several strategies may decrease overuse of endoscopy, including careful attention to risk stratification when choosing patients to screen, adherence to guidelines for surveillance intervals for colonoscopy, the use of quality indicators to identify outliers in endoscopy utilization, and education on appropriate indications and the risks of overuse at the medical student, residency, and fellowship levels.

Factors Associated With the Overuse of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

This systematic review examined factors associated with overuse of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1998 to March 2017. Studies were included if they were written in English, contained original data, involved a US population, and examined factors potentially associated with overuse of CRC screening. Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality, and extracted data. In 8 studies, the associations between patient factors, including age, sex, race, and number of comorbidities, were tested and were inconsistently associated with CRC screening overuse. Overuse of screening was greater in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic regions and in urban areas and was lower in academically affiliated centers. Although the literature supports important overuse of CRC screening, it remains unclear what drives these practices. Future research should thoroughly explore these factors and test the impact of interventions to reduce overuse of screening.

Colonoscopy overuse in colorectal cancer screening and associated factors in Argentina: a retrospective cohort study

Background

In recent years, there has been growing concern about the overuse of colonoscopy (CC). Our objective was to evaluate the incidence rate and cumulative probability of having a potentially inadequate CC (PI-CC, e.g. a CC that was performed earlier that recommended) and the association between the report of a hyperplastic polyp in the baseline CC report and the probability of having a PI-CC.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of adults 50y/o or older with a complete baseline CC between January 1st and December 31st 2005, without reported lesions or with hyperplastic polyps, based on secondary data extracted from the electronic medical record of the Hospital Italiano of Buenos Aires. The outcome consisted of time until a PI-CC, defined as the time measured between basal colonoscopy and a colonoscopy performed earlier than the inter-screening interval recommended by the USPSTF and the USMSTF.

Results

389 patients were included. The cumulative probability of receiving a PI-CC over 10 years was 0.29 (95% CI 0.241, 0.342). The incidence rate resulted in 30.91 PI-CC per 1000 person-years (95% CI 25.14, 38). The crude analysis of the association between the outcome and the presence of hyperplastic polyps in the baseline CC, showed a statistically significant difference between both groups (log rank, p 0.036). The multivariate analysis yielded a hazard ratio of 1.67 (95% CI 1.02–2.73).

Conclusion

We observed that 3 in every 10 patients treated in our health system received a PI-CC during the first ten consecutive years after a normal complete CC. Furthermore, this could be in part attributed to the presence of a hyperplastic polyp in the baseline CC.

Early Colorectal Cancer Detected by Machine Learning Model Using Gender, Age, and Complete Blood Count Data

BACKGROUND

Machine learning tools identify patients with blood counts indicating greater likelihood of colorectal cancer and warranting colonoscopy referral.

AIMS

To validate a machine learning colorectal cancer detection model on a US community-based insured adult population.

METHODS

Eligible colorectal cancer cases (439 females, 461 males) with complete blood counts before diagnosis were identified from Kaiser Permanente Northwest Region's Tumor Registry. Control patients (n = 9108) were randomly selected from KPNW's population who had no cancers, received at ≥1 blood count, had continuous enrollment from 180 days prior to the blood count through 24 months after the count, and were aged 40-89. For each control, one blood count was randomly selected as the pseudo-colorectal cancer diagnosis date for matching to cases, and assigned a "calendar year" based on the count date. For each calendar year, 18 controls were randomly selected to match the general enrollment's 10-year age groups and lengths of continuous enrollment. Prediction performance was evaluated by area under the curve, specificity, and odds ratios.

RESULTS

Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for detecting colorectal cancer was 0.80 ± 0.01. At 99% specificity, the odds ratio for association of a high-risk detection score with colorectal cancer was 34.7 (95% CI 28.9-40.4). The detection model had the highest accuracy in identifying right-sided colorectal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

ColonFlag^® identifies individuals with tenfold higher risk of undiagnosed colorectal cancer at curable stages (0/I/II), flags colorectal tumors 180-360 days prior to usual clinical diagnosis, and is more accurate at identifying right-sided (compared to left-sided) colorectal cancers.

Overtreatment in the United States

BACKGROUND

Overtreatment is a cause of preventable harm and waste in health care. Little is known about clinician perspectives on the problem. In this study, physicians were surveyed on the prevalence, causes, and implications of overtreatment.

METHODS

2,106 physicians from an online community composed of doctors from the American Medical Association (AMA) masterfile participated in a survey. The survey inquired about the extent of overutilization, as well as causes, solutions, and implications for health care. Main outcome measures included: percentage of unnecessary medical care, most commonly cited reasons of overtreatment, potential solutions, and responses regarding association of profit and overtreatment.

FINDINGS

The response rate was 70.1%. Physicians reported that an interpolated median of 20.6% of overall medical care was unnecessary, including 22.0% of prescription medications, 24.9% of tests, and 11.1% of procedures. The most common cited reasons for overtreatment were fear of malpractice (84.7%), patient pressure/request (59.0%), and difficulty accessing medical records (38.2%). Potential solutions identified were training residents on appropriateness criteria (55.2%), easy access to outside health records (52.0%), and more practice guidelines (51.5%). Most respondents (70.8%) believed that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them. Most respondents believed that de-emphasizing fee-for-service physician compensation would reduce health care utilization and costs.

CONCLUSION

From the physician perspective, overtreatment is common. Efforts to address the problem should consider the causes and solutions offered by physicians.

Overtreatment in the United States

Background

Overtreatment is a cause of preventable harm and waste in health care. Little is known about clinician perspectives on the problem. In this study, physicians were surveyed on the prevalence, causes, and implications of overtreatment.

Methods

2,106 physicians from an online community composed of doctors from the American Medical Association (AMA) masterfile participated in a survey. The survey inquired about the extent of overutilization, as well as causes, solutions, and implications for health care. Main outcome measures included: percentage of unnecessary medical care, most commonly cited reasons of overtreatment, potential solutions, and responses regarding association of profit and overtreatment.

Findings

The response rate was 70.1%. Physicians reported that an interpolated median of 20.6% of overall medical care was unnecessary, including 22.0% of prescription medications, 24.9% of tests, and 11.1% of procedures. The most common cited reasons for overtreatment were fear of malpractice (84.7%), patient pressure/request (59.0%), and difficulty accessing medical records (38.2%). Potential solutions identified were training residents on appropriateness criteria (55.2%), easy access to outside health records (52.0%), and more practice guidelines (51.5%). Most respondents (70.8%) believed that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them. Most respondents believed that de-emphasizing fee-for-service physician compensation would reduce health care utilization and costs.

Conclusion

From the physician perspective, overtreatment is common. Efforts to address the problem should consider the causes and solutions offered by physicians.

Head and neck subcutaneous emphysema, a rare complication of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy: management review of reported cases from 2000-2016

INTRODUCTION

Subcutaneous face and neck emphysema secondary to colonic perforation is a rare complication of colonoscopy. Presentation may be complicated by pneumothorax and/or respiratory distress. Evidence limited to case studies. Therefore, no management consensus of these rarely reported cases exists.

METHODS

All cases published on PubMed between 1 January 2000-1 November 2016 reporting subcutaneous face and/or neck emphysema after colonoscopy are included. Management is discussed with trends identified. We report a case of a patient undergoing routine polypectomy who developed subcutaneous emphysema of the face, neck and thorax with a pneumothorax and pneumoretroperitoneum.

RESULTS

37 cases were found (mean age = 64.1 ± 15.09 years). The majority (n = 24) were managed non-operatively. Conservative and operative management had mean inpatient stays of 7.6 ± 4.65 and 19.5 +/- 21.62 days respectively. Sixteen cases had a concomitant pneumothorax with nine (56.3%) requiring decompression. No mortalities occurred.

CONCLUSION

An understanding of anatomy heightens awareness of the rare complication of face and/or neck surgical emphysema, secondary to pneumoretroperitoneum and pneumothorax, after perforation of the colon during endoscopy. Management remains controversial with expectant conservative bowel rest with antibiotics and operative intervention described. Conservative management had a shorter inpatient stay and was more common in younger patients.

Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Average Risk Patients

Colorectal cancer (CRC) contributes a major burden of cancer mortality in the United States. There are multiple effective screening approaches that can reduce CRC mortality. These approaches are supported by different levels of evidence, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Implementing a systematic approach to screening that addresses the multiple steps involved in the screening process is essential to improving population-level CRC screening. Offering patients stool-based screening is important for increasing screening uptake. However, programs that offer stool testing must support the population health infrastructure needed to promote adherence to repeat testing and follow-up of abnormal tests.

Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations.

METHODS

We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.

Working up rectal bleeding in adult primary care practices

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Variation in the workup of rectal bleeding may result in guideline-discordant care and delayed diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Accordingly, we undertook this study to characterize primary care clinicians' initial rectal bleeding evaluation.

METHODS

We studied 438 patients at 10 adult primary care practices affiliated with three Boston, Massachusetts, academic medical centres and a multispecialty group practice, performing medical record reviews of subjects with visit codes for rectal bleeding, haemorrhoids or bloody stool. Nurse reviewers abstracted patients' sociodemographic characteristics, rectal bleeding-related symptoms and components of the rectal bleeding workup. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models examined factors associated with guideline-discordant workups.

RESULTS

Clinicians documented a family history of colorectal cancer or polyps at the index visit in 27% of cases and failed to document an abdominal or rectal examination in 21% and 29%. Failure to order imaging or a diagnostic procedure occurred in 32% of cases and was the only component of the workup associated with guideline-discordant care, which occurred in 27% of cases. Compared with patients at hospital-based teaching sites, patients at urban clinics or community health centres had 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.3-6.3) times the odds of having had an incomplete workup. Network affiliation was also associated with guideline concordance.

CONCLUSION

Workup of rectal bleeding was inconsistent, incomplete and discordant with guidelines in one-quarter of cases. Research and improvements strategies are needed to understand and manage practice and provider variation.