Endoscopy 2019; 51(04): S117
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681513
ESGE Days 2019 oral presentations
Saturday, April 6, 2019 14:30 – 16:00: CRC screening South Hall 1B
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

TIME TO COLONOSCOPY AFTER A POSITIVE FECAL TEST AND RISK OF COLORECTAL CANCER

C Hassan
1   ONRM Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
M Zorzi
2   Veneto Tumour Registry, Azienda Zero, Padua, Italy
,
A Turrin
2   Veneto Tumour Registry, Azienda Zero, Padua, Italy
,
E Narne
2   Veneto Tumour Registry, Azienda Zero, Padua, Italy
,
C Fedato
2   Veneto Tumour Registry, Azienda Zero, Padua, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 March 2019 (online)

Also available at
 
 

    Aims:

    To evaluate if time to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test is associated with the risk of colorectal cancer or adenoma and to identify a safety-threshold.

    Methods:

    We used the the data from the colorectal cancer screening programs of the Veneto Region (North East of Italy) from 2004 to 2017. The date and the outcome of each colonoscopy was recorded, together with the date of the corresponding positive fecal blood test.

    Results:

    Overall, 80% of the 123,165 colonoscopies that were included in the study took place within 60 days after the FIT, 13.7% between 61 and 90 days, 3.8% between 91 and 120 days, 1.7% between 121 and 180 days and 0.8% after more than 180 days (n = 1008).

    Colorectal cancer and high-risk adenoma were more frequently detected among subjects whose colonoscopy was performed more than 180 days after the FIT (colorectal cancer: OR vs. 1 – 60 days 1.40, p = 0.001; high risk adenoma: OR 1.12, p < 0.001), while no significant association was observed between the time-to-colonoscopy and a diagnosis of intermediate- or low-risk adenoma.

    Conclusions:

    A time-to-colonoscopy shorter than 180 days after a positive FIT is not associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer or high-risk adenoma. In the experience of the Veneto screening program, a longer interval was observed for a minority of patients (0.8%) and it was generally due to delays attributable to the patients.


    #