1
|
Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F, Barca A, Bonelli LA, Cannizzaro R, de Pretis G, Di Furia L, Di Giulio E, Mantellini P, Naldoni C, Sassatelli R, Rex DK, Zappa M, Hassan C. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy). Gut 2017; 66:1233-1240. [PMID: 26896459 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2015] [Revised: 01/14/2016] [Accepted: 01/16/2016] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) in organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test (FIT). DESIGN Data from a case series of colonoscopies of FIT-positive subjects were provided by 44 Italian CRC screening programmes. Data on screening history, endoscopic procedure and histology results, and additional information on the endoscopy centre and the endoscopists were collected, including the age-standardised and sex-standardised adenoma detection rate (ADR) of the individual endoscopists. The SSP detection rate (SSP-DR) was assessed for the study population. To identify SSP-predictive factors, multilevel analyses were performed according to patient/centre/endoscopist characteristics. RESULTS We analysed 72 021 colonoscopies, of which 1295 presented with at least one SSP (SSP-DR 1.8%; 95% CI 1.7% to 1.9%). At the per-patient level, SSP-DR was associated with males (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.54) and caecal intubation (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.22 to 6.34), but not with the FIT round. The presence of at least one advanced adenoma was more frequent among subjects with SSPs than those without (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.86 to 2.33). At the per-endoscopist level, SSP-DR was associated with ADR (third vs first ADR quartile: OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.35; fourth vs first quartile: OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.24 to 2.90). CONCLUSION The low prevalence of SSPs and the lack of association with the FIT round argue against SSP as a suitable target for FIT-based organised programmes. Strict association of SSP-DR with the key colonoscopy quality indicators, namely caecal intubation rate and high ADR further marginalises the need for SSP-specific quality indicators in FIT-based programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuel Zorzi
- Veneto Tumour Registry, Regione Veneto, Padova, Italy
| | - Carlo Senore
- CPO Piemonte and San Giovanni Battista University Hospital, Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Filippo Da Re
- Settore promozione e sviluppo igiene e sanità pubblica, Regione Veneto, Venice, Italy
| | | | - Luigina Ada Bonelli
- SS Prevenzione Secondaria e Screening, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genova, Italy
| | - Renato Cannizzaro
- Department of Oncological Gastroenterology, National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano, PN, Italy
| | - Giovanni de Pretis
- U.O. multizonale di Gastroenterologia, Ospedale S. Chiara, Trento, Italy
| | - Lucia Di Furia
- Agenzia Regionale Sanitaria, Regione Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Emilio Di Giulio
- Endoscopia Digestiva, Università di Roma 'Sapienza', Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea, Rome, Italy
| | - Paola Mantellini
- Clinical Epidemiology, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute (ISPO), Florence, Italy
| | - Carlo Naldoni
- Assessorato alle politiche per la salute, Regione Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Romano Sassatelli
- Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Douglas K Rex
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Marco Zappa
- SS Valutazione Screening, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute (ISPO), Florence, Italy
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Gastroenterology Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bogie R, Sanduleanu S. Optimizing post-polypectomy surveillance: A practical guide for the endoscopist. Dig Endosc 2016; 28:348-59. [PMID: 26179809 DOI: 10.1111/den.12510] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2015] [Revised: 06/25/2015] [Accepted: 07/08/2015] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Several gastrointestinal societies strongly recommend colonoscopy surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal neoplasms. Common denominators to these recommendations include: high-quality baseline colonoscopy before inclusion in a surveillance program; risk stratification based on clinicopathological profiles to guide surveillance intervals; and endoscopist responsibility for providing surveillance advice. Considerable variability also exists between guidelines (i.e. regarding risk classification and surveillance intervals). In this review, we examine key factors for quality of post-polypectomy surveillance practice, in particular bowel preparation, endoscopic findings at baseline examination and adherence to surveillance recommendations. Frequently asked questions by the practising endoscopist are addressed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roel Bogie
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Silvia Sanduleanu
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|