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

Polyp detection rate and cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Germany

Studies have shown that the quality of colonoscopy influences the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). However, data from Germany on this association are lacking. We aimed to assess cumulative incidence of PCCRC in persons undergoing colonoscopy in Germany according to the physician's polyp detection rate (PDR). Using the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD) with claims data of ~20% of the German population, we included persons with a baseline colonoscopy between 2008 and 2017 and categorized them according to the procedure at baseline (snare polypectomy, forceps polypectomy, no polypectomy). In each subgroup, we distinguished between persons examined by physicians with a PDR in the lowest quartile vs higher quartiles and described cumulative CRC incidence during follow-up. Overall, 822 715 persons examined by 1752 physicians were included. One quarter of the physicians had a PDR ≤21.8% (lowest quartile). In all subgroups, the 5-year cumulative CRC incidence was statistically significantly higher in persons examined by physicians with a PDR ≤21.8% vs >21.8%: It was 69% higher in persons with snare polypectomy (0.88% vs 0.52%), 87% higher in persons with forceps polypectomy (0.58% vs 0.31%), and 48% higher in persons without polypectomy at baseline (0.31% vs 0.21%). In conclusion, we found a substantially increased PCCRC risk in persons examined by physicians with a low PDR in Germany, irrespective of the baseline findings. Our study highlights the importance of a high-quality colonoscopy to maximize the preventive effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence.

Colorectal Cancer After Screening Colonoscopy: 10-Year Incidence by Site and Detection Rate at First Repeat Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to describe cumulative colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after screening colonoscopy stratified by tumor location, age, and sex as well as CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database, we included persons with screening colonoscopy and assessed cumulative CRC incidence after baseline screening colonoscopy with snare polypectomy (cohort 1) and without polypectomy (cohort 2). We also determined the CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy by time since screening colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,095,381 persons were included. The 10-year cumulative CRC incidence was 1.5% in cohort 1 and 0.6% in cohort 2. The proportion of proximal CRC increased with age: In women of cohort 1, 47% of CRCs in the age group 55-64 years were proximal (men: 42%) while in the age group 65-74 years, this proportion was 55% (men: 49%). In cohort 2, similar patterns were observed. In cohort 1, the CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy among persons examined within 6-8 years after screening colonoscopy was more than twice as high compared with those examined within 4-6 years (1.7% vs 0.8%).

DISCUSSION

Among persons followed up after screening colonoscopy, we observed a steadily increasing predominance of proximal CRC, and this shift showed distinct patterns by age and sex. Because our study suggests higher CRC detection rates among persons with a later repeat colonoscopy, the role of delayed surveillance and the benefit of a reminder system should be explored.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.