Rethinking Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Risk: Endoscopist Performance Versus Presence of High-risk Polyps.

IF 11.6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Nanette S van Roermund, Veerle M H Coupé, Manon C W Spaander, Monique E van Leerdam, Evelien Dekker, Joep E G IJspeert
{"title":"Rethinking Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Risk: Endoscopist Performance Versus Presence of High-risk Polyps.","authors":"Nanette S van Roermund, Veerle M H Coupé, Manon C W Spaander, Monique E van Leerdam, Evelien Dekker, Joep E G IJspeert","doi":"10.1016/j.cgh.2025.03.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Current post-polypectomy guidelines set intervals based solely on features of resected polyps. Despite the well-known inverse relationship between both adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs), both quality indicators are not considered when determining surveillance intervals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used colonoscopy data from 2014 to 2020 performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening program. Individuals were categorized into having high-risk polyps or no/low-risk polyps resected. The association between 3-year PCCRC-risk and presence of high-risk polyps and either ADR or PSPDR was studied with Cox proportional hazard regression. Secondly, endoscopists were categorized into low/medium/high ADR and PSPDR to enable stratified analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 239,217 individuals were included; 74,289 had high-risk polyps resected at baseline and 202 had PCCRC within the subsequent 3 years. Presence of high-risk polyps was not associated with PCCRC-risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.35), whereas ADR and PSPDR showed a strong association with PCCRC (per point increase HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95, respectively). For individuals with no/low-risk polyps but examined by endoscopists with low ADR, the HR of PCCRC was 2.11 (95% CI, 1.21-3.65), as compared with individuals with high-risk polyps but examined by endoscopists with high ADR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An individual's PCCRC risk in the initial years is primarily influenced by endoscopist performance, rather than the presence of high-risk polyps. To reduce PCCRCs, besides ensuring appropriate surveillance intervals, it is crucial to monitor and audit endoscopist quality indicators.</p>","PeriodicalId":10347,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2025.03.026","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Current post-polypectomy guidelines set intervals based solely on features of resected polyps. Despite the well-known inverse relationship between both adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs), both quality indicators are not considered when determining surveillance intervals.

Methods: We used colonoscopy data from 2014 to 2020 performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening program. Individuals were categorized into having high-risk polyps or no/low-risk polyps resected. The association between 3-year PCCRC-risk and presence of high-risk polyps and either ADR or PSPDR was studied with Cox proportional hazard regression. Secondly, endoscopists were categorized into low/medium/high ADR and PSPDR to enable stratified analysis.

Results: A total of 239,217 individuals were included; 74,289 had high-risk polyps resected at baseline and 202 had PCCRC within the subsequent 3 years. Presence of high-risk polyps was not associated with PCCRC-risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.35), whereas ADR and PSPDR showed a strong association with PCCRC (per point increase HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95, respectively). For individuals with no/low-risk polyps but examined by endoscopists with low ADR, the HR of PCCRC was 2.11 (95% CI, 1.21-3.65), as compared with individuals with high-risk polyps but examined by endoscopists with high ADR.

Conclusions: An individual's PCCRC risk in the initial years is primarily influenced by endoscopist performance, rather than the presence of high-risk polyps. To reduce PCCRCs, besides ensuring appropriate surveillance intervals, it is crucial to monitor and audit endoscopist quality indicators.

重新思考结肠镜检查后结直肠癌的风险:内镜医师的表现与高危息肉的存在。
背景和目的:目前的息肉切除术后指南仅根据切除息肉的特征设定间隔。尽管众所周知,腺瘤检出率(ADR)和近端锯齿状息肉检出率(PSPDR)与结肠镜后结直肠癌(PCCRCs)呈负相关,但在确定监测间隔时并未考虑这两个质量指标。方法:我们使用了2014-2020年荷兰CRC筛查项目中粪便免疫化学试验阳性的结肠镜检查数据。个体被分为高风险息肉和无/低风险息肉。采用cox比例风险回归研究3年pccrc风险与高危息肉存在与ADR或PSPDR之间的关系。其次,将内镜医师分为低/中/高ADR和PSPDR,进行分层分析。结果:共纳入个体239.217人;74.289人在基线时切除了高危息肉,202人在随后的3年内患有PCCRC。高危息肉的存在与PCCRC风险无关(HR 1.00;95%CI 0.75-1.35),而ADR和PSPDR与PCCRC有很强的相关性(HR每增加1点HR 0.94;95%CI 0.92-0.96; HR 0.92;95%CI 0.89-0.95)。无/低风险息肉但内镜检查不良反应低的个体,与有高风险息肉但内镜检查不良反应高的个体相比,PCCRC的风险比为2.11(1.21-3.65)。结论:个体在最初几年的pccrc风险主要受内镜检查的影响,而不是高风险息肉的存在。为了减少pccrc,除了确保适当的监测间隔外,对内窥镜医师质量指标的监测和审核至关重要。
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
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
903
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH) is dedicated to offering readers a comprehensive exploration of themes in clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. Encompassing diagnostic, endoscopic, interventional, and therapeutic advances, the journal covers areas such as cancer, inflammatory diseases, functional gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, absorption, and secretion. As a peer-reviewed publication, CGH features original articles and scholarly reviews, ensuring immediate relevance to the practice of gastroenterology and hepatology. Beyond peer-reviewed content, the journal includes invited key reviews and articles on endoscopy/practice-based technology, health-care policy, and practice management. Multimedia elements, including images, video abstracts, and podcasts, enhance the reader's experience. CGH remains actively engaged with its audience through updates and commentary shared via platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信