Comparing the resource implications of old and new colorectal adenoma surveillance guidelines in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The latest update to the Australian adenoma surveillance guideline in 2018 introduced a novel risk stratification system with updated surveillance recommendations. The resource implications of adopting this new system are unclear. AIMS: To quanitfy the resource demands of adopting new over old adenoma surveillance guidelines. METHODS: We studied data from 2443 patients undergoing colonoscopies, in which a clinically significant lesion was identified in their latest, or previous procedure(s) across five Australian hospitals. We excluded procedures with inflammatory bowel disease, new or prior history of colorectal cancer or resection, inadequate bowel preparation and incomplete procedures. Old and new Australian surveillance intervals were calculated according to the number, size and histological characteristics of lesions identified. We used these data to compare the rate of procedures according to each guideline. RESULTS: Based on the procedures for 766 patients, the new surveillance guidelines significantly increased the number of procedures allocated an interval of 1 year (relative risk (RR): 1.57, P = 0.009) and 10 years (RR: 3.83, P < 0.00001) and reduced those allocated to half a year (RR: 0.08, P = 0.00219), 3 years (RR: 0.51, P < 0.00001) and 5 years (RR: 0.59, P < 0.00001). Overall, this reduced the relative number of surveillance procedures by 21% over 10 years (25.92 vs 32.78 procedures/100 patient-years), which increased to 22% after excluding patients 75 or older at the time of surveillance (19.9 vs 25.65 procedures/100 patient-years). CONCLUSION: The adoption of the latest Australian adenoma surveillance guidelines can reduce demand for surveillance colonoscopy by more than a fifth (21-22%) over 10 years.

Are we underutilising computer tomography colonography in Australia?

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a safe and accurate tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. CTC requires dedicated radiological expertise and demonstrates a high sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection, which is similar to optical colonoscopy (OC). Newer preparation techniques for CTC, such as faecal tagging without catharsis might further improve both the tolerability and accuracy of the test. While exposure to ionising radiation, lack of capacity for therapeutic intervention and potentially diminished sensitivity for flat serrated polyps are limitations of CTC, the technique has a role in select populations. CTC should be considered in frail or elderly patients at high anaesthetic risk for OC, patients with stricturing colonic lesions as well as incomplete colonoscopy, or in patients at risk of delayed access to timely OC. With an ever-growing demand for endoscopic services, increased utilisation of CTC could reduce waiting times for colonoscopy, thereby broadening access to timely and effective CRC screening. Further research is required to improve further the detection of flat lesions, including sessile serrated polyps.