Optimal resource allocation in colonoscopy: timing of follow-up colonoscopies in relation to adenoma detection rates

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: The assessment of indications for follow-up colonoscopy may help to improve the allocation of available endoscopy resources. The aim of this study was to assess the timing of early follow-up colonoscopy and surveillance utilization in relation to adenoma detection rate (ADR) at follow-up.

Methods: An assessment of the timing and yield of follow-up colonoscopies was performed in patients with non-inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a Dutch multicenter study. The primary outcome was the number of patients with a prior (index) colonoscopy. The necessity for follow-up procedures was assessed using the ADR.

Results: Of 4800 consecutive patients undergoing a colonoscopy, 1249 non-IBD patients had undergone an index colonoscopy. Of these, follow-up procedures were performed within 1 year in 27 % (331/1249). Excluding incomplete colonoscopy, incomplete polypectomy, or poor bowel preparation on index, the ADR on early follow-up was 4 % for symptomatic and 26 % for asymptomatic patients. Among the asymptomatic patients with a follow-up colonoscopy at > 1 year (n = 463), an ADR of 23 % (108/463) was found. In 27 % of these patients, the observed surveillance intervals were in accordance with American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) surveillance recommendations; 60 % were classified as over-utilization and 13 % as under-utilization according to the AGA. Optimal utilization follow-up colonoscopies had higher ADRs on follow-up compared with over-utilized procedures (31 % vs. 17 %; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Follow-up colonoscopy in symptomatic patients within a year has limited value in terms of adenoma detection. A considerable proportion of surveillance colonoscopies are performed too early according to current guidelines, resulting in low detection rates. Both aspects can be targeted for optimal usage in endoscopic capacity.

• References

• 1 Harewood GC, Lieberman DA. Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of Medicare coverage for average-risk screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 72-77
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. The National Polyp Study Workgroup et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. New Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. New Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-1595
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Ko CW, Dominitz JA, Green P et al. Utilization and predictors of early repeat colonoscopy in Medicare beneficiaries. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2670-2679
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN et al. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Annals Int Med 2004; 141: 264-271
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Saini SD, Schoenfeld P, Vijan S. Surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective for patients with adenomas who are at high risk of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 2292-2299
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 73-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL et al. Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 98-106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Juillerat P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Vader JP et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 240-246
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Mulder SA, Ouwendijk RJ, van Leerdam ME et al. A nationwide survey evaluating adherence to guidelines for follow-up after polypectomy or treatment for colorectal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 42: 487-492
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1207-1214
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Seow CH, Ee HC, Willson AB et al. Repeat colonoscopy has a low yield even in symptomatic patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 941-947
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, van Leerdam ME et al. Systematic literature review and pooled analyses of risk factors for finding adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 560-572
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Nagengast FM, Kaandorp CJ, werkgroep CBO. [Revised CBO guideline ‘Follow-up after polypectomy’] Herziene CBO-richtlijn ‘Follow-up na poliepectomie’. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001; 145: 2022-2025
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Krist AH, Jones RM, Woolf SH et al. Timing of repeat colonoscopy: disparity between guidelines and endoscopists’ recommendation. Am J Prev Med 2007; 33: 471-478
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Mulder SA, Van Leerdam ME, Ouwendijk RJ et al. Attendance at surveillance endoscopy of patients with adenoma or colorectal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 66-71
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals Int Med 2002; 137: 96-104
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Panteris V, Haringsma J, Kuipers EJ. Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 941-951
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Sanaka MR, Super DM, Feldman ES et al. Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 97-103
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Baron TH, Kimery BD, Sorbi D et al. Strategies to address increased demand for colonoscopy: guidelines in an open endoscopy practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 178-182
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Leffler DA, Neeman N, Rabb JM et al. An alerting system improves adherence to follow-up recommendations from colonoscopy examinations. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1166-1173
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Neerincx M, Terhaar sive Droste JS, Mulder CJ et al. Colonic work-up after incomplete colonoscopy: significant new findings during follow-up. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 730-735
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar