Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer and the association with endoscopic findings in the Danish colorectal cancer screening programme.

IF 3.3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Simon Ladefoged Rasmussen, Lasse Pedersen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Morten Rasmussen, Inge Bernstein, Ole Thorlacius-Ussing
{"title":"Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer and the association with endoscopic findings in the Danish colorectal cancer screening programme.","authors":"Simon Ladefoged Rasmussen, Lasse Pedersen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Morten Rasmussen, Inge Bernstein, Ole Thorlacius-Ussing","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in Denmark, with a 5-year mortality of 40%. To reduce CRC incidence and mortality, a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programme was introduced in 2014. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an established quality marker inversely associated with post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC), but evidence mainly stems from non-FIT populations. Using ADR in a FIT-based setting may be costly due to histopathological examination. Alternative markers like polyp detection rate (PDR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) could be viable but lack evidence for their association with PCCRC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a nationwide cohort study of 77 009 FIT-positive participants undergoing colonoscopy (2014-2017). National registry data on CRC outcomes were linked, and endoscopy units were grouped by ADR, PDR and SDR levels. Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities was used to assess PCCRC risk.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 70 009 colonoscopies within 6 months of FIT positivity, 4401 (92.7%) had CRC, while 342 (7.2%) were PCCRC cases. PCCRC risk was inversely associated with ADR, PDR and SDR. High ADR endoscopy units had a 35% lower PCCRC risk than low ADR units. Similar associations were found for PDR and SDR, with high SDR units showing a 33% lower PCCRC risk than low SDR units.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ADR, PDR and SDR predict PCCRC risk, with SDR emerging as a feasible, cost-efficient quality marker in FIT-based screening. This study supports SDR as a primary performance indicator in future protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931950/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in Denmark, with a 5-year mortality of 40%. To reduce CRC incidence and mortality, a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programme was introduced in 2014. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an established quality marker inversely associated with post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC), but evidence mainly stems from non-FIT populations. Using ADR in a FIT-based setting may be costly due to histopathological examination. Alternative markers like polyp detection rate (PDR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) could be viable but lack evidence for their association with PCCRC.

Methods: We conducted a nationwide cohort study of 77 009 FIT-positive participants undergoing colonoscopy (2014-2017). National registry data on CRC outcomes were linked, and endoscopy units were grouped by ADR, PDR and SDR levels. Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities was used to assess PCCRC risk.

Results: Among 70 009 colonoscopies within 6 months of FIT positivity, 4401 (92.7%) had CRC, while 342 (7.2%) were PCCRC cases. PCCRC risk was inversely associated with ADR, PDR and SDR. High ADR endoscopy units had a 35% lower PCCRC risk than low ADR units. Similar associations were found for PDR and SDR, with high SDR units showing a 33% lower PCCRC risk than low SDR units.

Conclusions: ADR, PDR and SDR predict PCCRC risk, with SDR emerging as a feasible, cost-efficient quality marker in FIT-based screening. This study supports SDR as a primary performance indicator in future protocols.

结肠镜检查后结直肠癌及其与丹麦结直肠癌筛查项目的内窥镜检查结果的关系。
目的:结直肠癌(CRC)是丹麦第三大常见癌症,5年死亡率为40%。为了降低CRC的发病率和死亡率,2014年引入了基于粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)的筛查方案。腺瘤检出率(ADR)是一个与结肠镜后CRC (PCCRC)负相关的质量指标,但证据主要来自非fit人群。由于组织病理学检查,在基于fit的环境中使用ADR可能代价高昂。其他标志物如息肉检出率(PDR)和无梗锯齿状病变检出率(SDR)可能是可行的,但缺乏证据表明它们与PCCRC的关联。方法:我们开展了一项全国队列研究,共纳入77,009名fit阳性参与者(2014-2017年)进行结肠镜检查。链接国家结直肠癌结局登记数据,内窥镜检查单位按ADR、PDR和SDR水平分组。使用泊松回归校正年龄、性别和合并症来评估PCCRC的风险。结果:在FIT阳性6个月内的70009例结肠镜检查中,4401例(92.7%)为结直肠癌,342例(7.2%)为PCCRC。PCCRC风险与ADR、PDR和SDR呈负相关。高ADR内窥镜检查组的PCCRC风险比低ADR检查组低35%。PDR和SDR也发现了类似的关联,高SDR单位的PCCRC风险比低SDR单位低33%。结论:ADR、PDR和SDR可预测PCCRC风险,SDR在基于fit的筛查中逐渐成为一种可行且具有成本效益的质量指标。本研究支持SDR作为未来协议的主要性能指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Gastroenterology
BMJ Open Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Gastroenterology is an online-only, peer-reviewed, open access gastroenterology journal, dedicated to publishing high-quality medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas of gastroenterology. It is the open access companion journal of Gut and is co-owned by the British Society of Gastroenterology. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信