Analysis of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer and Its Subtypes in a Screening Programme.

Using the algorithm of the World Endoscopy Organisation (WEO), we have studied retrospectively all colorectal cancers, both detected and non-detected by the Basque Country screening programme from 2009 to 2017. In the screening programme 61,335 colonoscopies were performed following a positive Faecal Immunochemical test (FIT) (≥20 µg Hb/g faeces) and the 128 cases of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) detected were analysed. Among them, 50 interval type PCCRCs were diagnosed (before the recommended surveillance), 0.8 cases per 1000 colonoscopies performed, and 78 non-interval type PCCRCs (in the surveillance carried out at the recommended time or delayed), 1.3 per 1000 colonoscopies. Among the non-interval type PCCRCs, 61 cases were detected in the surveillance carried out at the recommended time (type A) and 17 when the surveillance was delayed (type B), 1 case per 1000 colonoscopies performed and 0.28 cases per 1000 colonoscopies performed, respectively. Interval type PCCRC is less frequent than non-interval type PCCRC. In interval type PCCRCs, CRCs detected in advanced stages (stages III-IV) were significantly more frequent than those detected in early stages, compared to those of non-interval type PCCRCs (OR = 3.057; 95% CI, 1.410-6.625; p < 0.005). Non-interval type B PCCRCs are less frequent than non-interval type A PCCRCs, but the frequency of advanced stages is higher in interval type B PCCRCs.

Quality indicators and patient satisfaction in colonoscopy. / Indicadores de calidad y satisfacción de los pacientes en la colonoscopia.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is the diagnostic/therapeutic confirmation test for colorectal cancer. The monitoring of the experience of people who have undergone the test is interesting to improve the quality of the colonoscopy. The aim of the project was to study factors affecting patients' experience and their relationship with the quality indicators of the Clinical Practice Guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted, including quality and experience indicators (adapted mGHAA-9 questionnaire and clinical history) in a sample of 432 participants aged between 40- and 75-years-old who had undergone a colonoscopy in 2015. Univariate and multivariate analysis with multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Satisfaction was associated in the multivariate analysis with evaluating the waiting time for the colonoscopy as short (OR=3.80) (1.76-10.90, 95% CI),>55-years-old (OR=2.60) (1.19-5.68, 95% CI), rating the experience with the preparation positively (OR=7.34) (3.15-17.09, 95% CI), not reporting pain or discomfort during the procedure (OR=3.71) (1.03-13.40, 95% CI) (P=.006) and being examined in a tertiary hospital (OR=2.81) (1.17-6.72; 95% CI) (P=.020). DISCUSSION: The mGHAA-9 questionnaire adapted to Spanish is useful to evaluate patient experience factors. There are aspects to improve in terms of waiting time, colon cleansing, satisfaction with preparation and post-colonoscopy problems. Interventions should be implemented to enhance patient experience and colonoscopy quality.

Colorectal cancer screening program using FIT: quality of colonoscopy varies according to hospital type.

Background and study aims To compare the quality of colonoscopy in a population-based coordinated program of colorectal cancer screening according to type of hospital (academic or non-academic). Patients and methods Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT (≥ 20 ug Hb/g feces) between January 2009 and September 2016 were prospectively included at five academic and seven non-academic public hospitals. Screening colonoscopy quality indicators considered were adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, complications and bowel preparation quality. Results A total of 48,759 patients underwent colonoscopy, 34,616 (80 %) in academic hospitals and 14,143 in non-academic hospitals. Among these cases, 19,942 (37.1 %) advanced adenomas and 2,607 (5.3 %) colorectal cancers (CRCs) were detected, representing a total of 22,549 (46.2 %) cases of advanced neoplasia. The adenoma detection rate was 64 %, 63.1 % in academic hospitals and 66.4 % in non-academic hospitals ( P  < 0.001). Rates of advanced adenoma detection, cecal intubation and adequate colonic preparation were 45.8 %, 96.2 % and 88.3 %, respectively, and in all cases were lower (implying worse quality care) in academic hospitals (45.3 % vs 48.7 %; odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.84 - 0.91; 95.9 % vs 97 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.38 - 0.69; and 86.4 % vs 93 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.45 - 0.5; respectively; P  < 0.001 in all cases). In 13 patients, all in the academic hospital group, CRC was diagnosed after colonoscopy (0.26 cases × 1000 colonoscopies). Rates of CRC treated by endoscopy were similar in both types of hospital (30 %). The rate of severe complication was 1.2 % (602 patients), with no significant differences by hospital type: bleeding occurred in 1/147 colonoscopies and perforation in 1/329. One patient died within 30 days after screening colonoscopy. Conclusions The quality of colonoscopy was better in non-academic hospitals. The rate of detection of advanced neoplasia was higher in non-academic hospitals and correlated with the rate of post-colonoscopy CRC.