Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Roupen Djinbachian; Anne-Julie Dubé; Madeleine Durand; Louopou Rosalie Camara; Benoit Panzini; Simon Bouchard; Daniel von Renteln

doi:10.1055/a-0865-2082

Endoscopy, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Endoscopy 2019; 51(07): 673-683
DOI: 10.1055/a-0865-2082

Review

Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Roupen Djinbachian

¹University of Montreal, Faculty of Medicine, and Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Canada

,

Anne-Julie Dubé

¹University of Montreal, Faculty of Medicine, and Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Canada

,

Madeleine Durand

²Division of Internal Medicine, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM) and Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Canada

,

Louopou Rosalie Camara

¹University of Montreal, Faculty of Medicine, and Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Canada

,

Benoit Panzini

³Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM) and Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Canada

,

Simon Bouchard

³Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM) and Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Canada

,

Daniel von Renteln

³Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM) and Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Canada

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major worldwide cause of cancer-related mortality. Colonoscopy programs based on guideline-recommended surveillance intervals have been put in place to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with CRC. We were interested to evaluate clinical practice adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance intervals, the potential extent of early repeat colonoscopies, and causes of nonadherence to guideline recommendations.

Methods We performed a literature search for articles reporting on guideline adherence for surveillance colonoscopies. Exclusion criteria included inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary CRC syndrome cohorts. Primary outcome was correct interval assignment in patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. Groups were assessed for adherence according to their respective guideline recommendations (North American or European).

Results 16 studies were included in the analysis. The mean colonoscopy surveillance interval adherence rate was 48.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 37.3 – 60.4). For North American guidelines, surveillance interval assignments were adherent to guideline recommendations in 44.7 % (95 %CI 24.2 – 66.3) of patients after detection of low risk lesions and in 54.6 % (95 %CI 41.4 – 67.4) after detection of high risk lesions. For European guidelines, surveillance interval assignments were adherent to recommendations in 24.4 % (95 %CI 1.1 – 63.4) of patients after detection of low risk lesions and in 73.6 % (95 %CI 35.5 – 98.8) after detection of high risk lesions.

Conclusions The worldwide adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines was low, with more than 50 % of patients undergoing repeat colonoscopies either too early or too late. Early repeat colonoscopies occurred with the highest frequency for patients in whom only hyperplastic polyps or low risk adenomas were found.

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM. et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 524-548
2 Yamaji Y, Mitsushima T, Ikuma H. et al. Incidence and recurrence rates of colorectal adenomas estimated by annually repeated colonoscopies on asymptomatic Japanese. Gut 2004; 53: 568-572
3 Loeve F, van Ballegooijen M, Boer R. et al. Colorectal cancer risk in adenoma patients: a nation-wide study. Int J Cancer 2004; 111: 147-151
4 Leung K, Pinsky P, Laiyemo AO. et al. Ongoing colorectal cancer risk despite surveillance colonoscopy: the Polyp Prevention Trial Continued Follow-up Study. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 111-117
5 Bond JH. Polyp guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance for patients with colorectal polyps. Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 3053-3063
6 Click B, Pinsky PF, Hickey T. et al. Association of colonoscopy adenoma findings with long-term colorectal cancer incidence. JAMA 2018; 319: 2021-2031
7 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
8 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
9 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
10 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ. et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
11 von Karsa L, Patnick J. European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 51-59
12 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
13 Hunter JP, Saratzis A, Sutton AJ. et al. In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 897-903
14 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
15 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
16 Pickard M, Dewar EP, Kapadia RC. et al. Follow up of patients with colorectal polyps: are the BSG guidelines being adhered to?. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9: 203-206
17 John BJ, Irukulla S, Pilgrim G. et al. Surveillance colonoscopies for colorectal polyps – too often, too many! An audit at a large district general hospital. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10: 898-900
18 Goodwin JS, Singh A, Reddy N. et al. Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the medicare population. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171: 1335-1343
19 O’Connor A, Keane RA, Egan B. et al. Adherence to colorectal polyp surveillance guidelines: is there a ‘scope’ to increase the opportunities for screening?. Eur J Cancer Prev 2011; 20: 40-45
20 Kim ER, Sinn DH, Kim JY. et al. Factors associated with adherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1690-1695
21 Schreuders E, Sint Nicolaas J, De Jonge V. et al. The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 33-38
22 Menees SB, Elliott E, Govani S. et al. Adherence to recommended intervals for surveillance colonoscopy in average-risk patients with 1 to 2 small (<1 cm) polyps on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 551-557
23 Johnson MR, Grubber J, Grambow SC. et al. Physician non-adherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 938-951
24 Kruse GR, Khan SM, Zaslavsky AM. et al. Overuse of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30: 277-283
25 Patel N, Tong L, Ahn C. et al. Post-polypectomy guideline adherence: importance of belief in guidelines, not guideline knowledge or fear of missed cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 2937-2945
26 Van Heijningen EMB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW. et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584-1592
27 Desai V, Sussman DA, Greenspan M. et al. Most premature surveillance colonoscopy is not attributable to bowel preparation or new clinical indications. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 2496-2504
28 Esteban S, Ricci R, Terrasa S. et al. Colonoscopy overuse in colorectal cancer screening and associated factors in Argentina: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol 2017; 17: 1-7
29 Gessl I, Waldmann E, Britto-Arias M. et al. Surveillance colonoscopy in Austria: are we following the guidelines?. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 119-127
30 Zwink N, Holleczek B, Stegmaier C. et al. Complication rates in colonoscopy screening for cancer: a prospective cohort study of complications arising during the procedure and in the ensuing four weeks. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2017; 114: 321-327
31 Panteris V, Haringsma J, Kuipers EJ. Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 941-951
32 Saini SD, Nayak RS, Kuhn L. et al. Why don't gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines? results of a national survey. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 43: 554-558
33 Shah TU, Voils CI, McNeil R. et al. Understanding gastroenterologist adherence to polyp surveillance guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1283-1287
34 Iskandar H, Yan Y, Elwing J. et al. Predictors of poor adherence of US gastroenterologists with colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 971-978
35 Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ. et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 1933-1943 e1935
36 Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN. et al. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 264-271
37 Nelson DB. Appropriate use of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2005; 2: 22-23
38 Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J. et al. Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 654-659
39 Chivers KC, Basnyat PS, Taffinder N. How compliant do we want to be with the colonoscopy surveillance guidelines?. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9: 830-833
40 Zbidi I, Hazazi R, Niv Y. et al. Colonosopy screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer and polyps: physicians’ knowledge. Isr Med Assoc J 2007; 9: 862-865
41 Mulder SA, Ouwendijk RJT, 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
42 John BJ, Irukulla S, Mendall MA. et al. Do guidelines improve clinical practice? – a national survey on surveillance colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 642-645
43 Van Kooten H, De Jonge V, Schreuders E. et al. Awareness of postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: a nationwide survey of colonoscopists in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 26: 79-84
44 Sohn DK. Colonoscopy Study Group of the Korean Society of Coloproctology. A survey of colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Coloproctol 2014; 30: 88-92
45 Nayor J, Saltzman JR, Campbell EJ. et al. Impact of physician compliance with colonoscopy surveillance guidelines on interval colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1263-1270
46 Dube C, Yakubu M, McCurdy BR. et al. Risk of advanced adenoma, colorectal cancer, and colorectal cancer mortality in people with low-risk adenomas at baseline colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: 1790-1801
47 Singh H, Turner D, Xue L. et al. Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies. JAMA 2006; 295: 2366-2373
48 Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Brenner A. et al. Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 823-834
49 Jover R, Bretthauer M, Dekker E. et al. The European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials – rationale, design and methodology. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 571-578
50 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3761-3767
51 Lieberman D, Abbott DH, O’Leary MC. et al. Clinical risk group at baseline is associated with 10 year outcomes in a screening cohort – longitudinal analysis of the CSP 380 Cohort. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: S184
52 Ponugoti PL, Rex DK. Yield of a second screening colonoscopy 10 years after an initial negative examination in average-risk individuals. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 221-224
53 Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR. et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 250-281
54 Abbett SK, Yokoe DS, Lipsitz SR. et al. Proposed checklist of hospital interventions to decrease the incidence of healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30: 1062-1069
55 Spector JM, Lashoher A, Agrawal P. et al. Designing the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program to improve quality of care at childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013; 122: 164-168
56 Haynes AB, Berry WR, Gawande AA. What do we know about the Safe Surgery Checklist now?. Ann Surg 2015; 261: 829-830

Zusatzmaterial

Zusatzmaterial