Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) is inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and death. The aim of this study was to examine whether such associations exist for colonoscopy quality measures other than ADR. METHODS: We used data from the Polish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program collected in 2000-2011. For all endoscopists who performed ≥100 colonoscopies we calculated detection rates of adenomas (ADR), polyps (PDR), and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm/villous component/high-grade dysplasia [AADR]); and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and per colonoscopy with ≥1 adenoma (APPC). We followed patients until CRC diagnosed before recommended surveillance, death, or December 31, 2019. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional-hazard models. We used Harrell's C statistic to compare the predictive power of the quality measures. RESULTS: Data on 173,287 patients (median age, 56 years; 37.8% male) and 262 endoscopists were used. During a median follow-up of 10 years and 1,490,683 person-years, we identified 395 CRCs. All quality measures were significantly associated with CRC risk and death. The relative reductions in CRC risk were as follows: for ADR ≥24.9% (reference <12.1%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), PDR ≥42.7% (reference <19.9%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51), AADR ≥9.1% (reference <4.1%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96), APC ≥0.37 (reference <0.15; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58), and APPC ≥1.54 (reference <1.19; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). AADR was the only quality measure with significantly lower predictive power than ADR (Harrell's C, 59.7 vs 63.4; P = .001). Similar relative reductions were observed for CRC death. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study confirmed the inverse association between ADR and CRC risk and death. The PDR and APC quality measures appear to be comparable with ADR.

Prevalence and risk factors of upper gastrointestinal cancers missed during endoscopy: a nationwide registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGICs) remain undetected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We investigated the characteristics and risk factors of UGICs missed during endoscopy. METHODS: In this nationwide registry-based study, we analyzed two large Polish datasets (National Health Fund and National Cancer Registry) to identify individuals who underwent EGD and were subsequently diagnosed with UGIC. Cancers diagnosed < 6 months after EGD were defined as "prevalent" and those within ≥ 6- < 36 months as "missed." We compared the characteristics of missed and prevalent cancers, and analyzed the risk factors for missed UGICs in a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: We included 4 105 399 patients (mean age 56.0 years [SD 17.4]; 57.5 % female) who underwent 5 877 674 EGDs in 2012-2018. Within this cohort, 33 241 UGICs were diagnosed, of which 1993 (6.0 %) were missed. Within esophageal neoplasms, adenocarcinomas were more frequently missed than squamous cell cancers (6.1 % vs. 4.2 %), with a relative risk of 1.4 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.8, P = 0.01). Most gastric cancers were adenocarcinomas, of which 5.7 % were classified as missed. Overall, a higher proportion of missed UGICs than prevalent cancers presented at an advanced stage (42.2 % vs. 36.2 %, P < 0.001). Risk factors for missed UGICs included initial EGD performed within primary (vs. secondary) care (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95 %CI 1.2-1.5), female sex (OR 1.3, 95 %CI 1.2-1.4), and higher comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 5 vs. 0; OR 6.0, 95 %CI 4.7-7.5). CONCLUSIONS: Among UGICs, esophageal adenocarcinomas were missed most frequently. Missed cancers occur more frequently within the primary care sector and are found more often in women and individuals with multiple comorbidities.

A roadmap for a comprehensive control of cervical cancer in Poland: integration of available solutions into current practice in primary and secondary prevention.

In Poland, cervical cancer incidence and mortality still remain considerably higher than in Western European countries or North America. Recent data indicate decreasing trends in women younger than 60 years and stable trends in older women. In this article, we identified obstacles in primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer in Poland. We analysed local legislation, management structure and organization of cervical cancer prevention in Poland and reviewed solutions available and implemented in other European countries. The main weaknesses include: (i) very low coverage of organized screening; concurrent unregistered opportunistic screening with unknown coverage and high test consumption (ii) suboptimal quality assurance in organized screening and no external quality assurance in opportunistic screening (iii) very low coverage of human papillomavirus vaccination that is not centrally reimbursed (iv) absence of pilot evaluation of (a) interventions that may improve population coverage and (b) performance of new preventive strategies. The proposed solutions are multifaceted and involve: (i) legislative and organizational regulation of cervical cancer screening aimed at comprehensive registration of procedures, data access and quality assurance (ii) pilot testing and implementation of new ways to increase coverage of cervical cancer screening, in particular among older women (iii) pilot evaluation with possible introduction of human papillomavirus-based screening and (iv) inclusion of human papillomavirus vaccination into the reimbursed national immunization program.