Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk.

METHODS

We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Higher Serrated Polyp Detection Rates Are Associated With Lower Risk of Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

INTRODUCTION

We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and sessile serrated detection rates (SSLDRs).

METHODS

We included patients with either a colonoscopy or a CRC diagnosis in the NH State Cancer Registry. PCCRC was any CRC diagnosed ≥ 6 months after index examination.

RESULTS

Of 26,901 patients, 162 were diagnosed with PCCRC. The hazard ratio for PCCRC was lowest for patients whose endoscopists had the highest SSLDR quintile (≥6%) (hazard ratio 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.50).

DISCUSSION

Endoscopists with higher SSLDRs had lower risks of PCCRC. These data validate SSLDR as a clinically relevant quality measure.

Using New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to assess United States and European post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines

BACKGROUND

Our goal was to compare the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) high risk groups in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia on first follow-up colonoscopy and long-term colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

We compared advanced metachronous neoplasia risk (serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm or with dysplasia, advanced adenomas [≥ 1 cm, villous, high grade dysplasia], CRC) on first surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high risk findings according to ESGE versus USMSTF guidelines. We also compared the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of both guidelines for metachronous neoplasia.

RESULTS

The risk for metachronous neoplasia in our sample (n = 20 458) was higher in the high risk USMSTF (3 year) (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-14.9) and ESGE groups (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-15.0) compared with the lowest risk USMSTF (5.1 %; 95 %CI 4.7-5.5; P < 0.001) and ESGE categories (6.3 %; 95 %CI 6.0-6.7; P < 0.001), respectively. Adding other groups such as USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the 3-year category resulted in minimal change in the PPV and NPV for metachronous advanced neoplasia. High risk ESGE (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03, 95 %CI 1.97-4.65) and USMSTF (HR 3.07, 95 %CI 2.03-4.66) designations were associated with similar long-term CRC risk (CRC per 100 000 person-years: USMSTF 3-year group 3.54, 95 %CI 2.68-4.68; ESGE high risk group: 3.43, 95 %CI 2.57-4.59).

CONCLUSION

Performance characteristics for the ESGE and USMSTF recommendations are similar in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia and long-term CRC. The addition of risk groups, such as the USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the USMSTF 3-year category did not alter the PPV or NPV significantly.

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR.

METHODS

We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Colonoscopy Findings in FIT+ and mt-sDNA+ Patients versus in Colonoscopy-only Patients: New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry Data

Few studies compare fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) outcomes in practice. We compared colonoscopy yield following FIT+ or mt-sDNA+ tests to colonoscopies without preceding stool tests in the comprehensive population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR). Outcomes were any neoplasia and an ordered outcome: adenocarcinoma, advanced neoplasia (adenoma/serrated polyp ≥ 1 cm/villous/high-grade dysplasia), nonadvanced neoplasia, or normal. Our total sample included 306 mt-sDNA+ (average age ± SD 67.0 ± 7.9), 276 FIT+ (66.6 ± 8.7), and 50,990 colonoscopy-only patients (61.8 ± 8.1). Among average-risk patients (N = 240 mt-sDNA+, N = 194 FIT+, N = 26,221 colonoscopy only), mt-sDNA+ patients had a higher risk for any neoplasia (67.1%) compared with FIT+ (54.6%, P = 0.00098) or colonoscopy (40.8%, P < 0.0001). Severity of findings and histology subtypes differed across the three groups (P < 0.0001 for both), with a higher yield of advanced findings in mt-sDNA+ patients. In particular, clinically relevant serrated polyps (hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm/traditional serrated adenomas/sessile serrated polyps) were detected at a higher frequency in mt-sDNA+ patients as compared with FIT+ or colonoscopy-only patients. Even after adjustment, patients with positive mt-sDNA [OR = 2.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.00-4.02] or FIT+ tests (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.36) were more likely to have histologically more advanced findings than colonoscopy alone. At follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA+ tests were more likely to predict neoplasia than FIT+, largely due to increased detection of serrated polyps. Prevention Relevance: Colorectal cancer screening options include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, including the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test which, if positive, must be followed by a colonoscopy. Assessing "real-world" outcomes of colonoscopies following positive stool tests can inform their clinical use. See related Spotlight, p. 417.