Dong Jun Kim, Nan-He Yoon, Jae Kwan Jun, Mina Suh, Sunhwa Lee, Seongju Kim, Ji Eun Kim, H. Lee
{"title":"Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea.","authors":"Dong Jun Kim, Nan-He Yoon, Jae Kwan Jun, Mina Suh, Sunhwa Lee, Seongju Kim, Ji Eun Kim, H. Lee","doi":"10.4143/crt.2024.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose\nThe rate of interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) is now accepted as a key performance indicator of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. We aimed to examine the association between endoscopist volumes and the rate of iCRC among individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within a nationwide population-based CRC screening program.\n\n\nMaterials and Methods\nIndividuals aged ≥50 years who underwent colonoscopy after a positive FIT from January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2020 in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) were enrolled. We converted the data into per-endoscopist screening results, calculated the iCRC rates per endoscopist, and compared them to the previous year's annual volume that was divided into five groups (V1, 1-9; V2, 10-29; V3, 30-59; V4, 60-119; V5, ≥120).\n\n\nResults\nA total of 10,412 endoscopists performed 216,907 colonoscopies. Overall, the average rate of iCRC per endoscopist was 8.46 per 1,000 examinations. Compared with the group with the highest volume (V5 group), the rate of iCRC was 2.21 times higher in the V1 group. Similar trends were observed in the other groups (V2: Relative risks [RR], 2.15; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.57-2.94; V3: RR, 1.56, 95% CI, 1.15-2.13; V4: RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.83-1.67).\n\n\nConclusion\nThe findings emphasize that endoscopists with lower procedure volumes have higher risks of interval cancer being missed or undetected. To maximize the preventative impact of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer, this issue should be addressed by monitoring endoscopist volumes and variations in performances.","PeriodicalId":504022,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Research and Treatment","volume":"8 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The rate of interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) is now accepted as a key performance indicator of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. We aimed to examine the association between endoscopist volumes and the rate of iCRC among individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within a nationwide population-based CRC screening program.
Materials and Methods
Individuals aged ≥50 years who underwent colonoscopy after a positive FIT from January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2020 in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) were enrolled. We converted the data into per-endoscopist screening results, calculated the iCRC rates per endoscopist, and compared them to the previous year's annual volume that was divided into five groups (V1, 1-9; V2, 10-29; V3, 30-59; V4, 60-119; V5, ≥120).
Results
A total of 10,412 endoscopists performed 216,907 colonoscopies. Overall, the average rate of iCRC per endoscopist was 8.46 per 1,000 examinations. Compared with the group with the highest volume (V5 group), the rate of iCRC was 2.21 times higher in the V1 group. Similar trends were observed in the other groups (V2: Relative risks [RR], 2.15; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.57-2.94; V3: RR, 1.56, 95% CI, 1.15-2.13; V4: RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.83-1.67).
Conclusion
The findings emphasize that endoscopists with lower procedure volumes have higher risks of interval cancer being missed or undetected. To maximize the preventative impact of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer, this issue should be addressed by monitoring endoscopist volumes and variations in performances.