Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/a-2444-6292
Costs and benefits of a formal quality framework for colonoscopy: Economic evaluation
Authors
Abstract
Background and study aims Reduction of colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality is one of the primary objectives of colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) are critical outcome parameters. Analysis of PCCRC rates can validate quality assurance measures in colonoscopy. We assessed the effectiveness of implementing a gastroenterologist-led quality framework that monitors key procedure quality indicators (i.e., bowel preparation quality, adenoma detection rates, or patient satisfaction) by comparing the PCCRC rate before and after implementation.
Patients and methods Individuals who had a colonoscopy between 2010 and 2017 at a single tertiary center in Queensland, Australia, were included and divided into two groups: baseline (2010–2014) and redesign phase (2015–2017). Data linkage of the state-wide cancer registry and hospital records enabled identification of subjects who developed colorectal cancers within 5 years of a negative colonoscopy. Costs associated with quality improvement were assessed for effectiveness.
Results A total of 19,383 individuals had a colonoscopy during the study period. Seventeen PCCRCs were detected. The PCCRC rate was 0.376 per 1,000 person-years and the average 5-year PCCRC risk ranged from 0.165% to 0.051%. The rate of PCCRCs was higher at the beginning (0.166%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15%-0.17%) compared with the later period with full implementation of quality control measures (0.027%; 95% CI 0.023%-0.03%). The quality process determined an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$5,670.53 per PCCRC avoided.
Conclusions This large cohort study demonstrated that a formal gastroenterologist-led quality assurance framework embedded into the routine operations of a clinical department not only reduces interval cancers but is also cost-effective regarding life years gained and quality-adjusted life years.
Keywords
Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Colorectal cancer - CRC screening - Quality and logistical aspects - Performance and complicationsPublication History
Received: 17 April 2024
Accepted after revision: 23 September 2024
Article published online:
18 November 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Issa IA, Noureddine M. Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 5086-5096
- 2 Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P. et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1661-1674.e1611
- 3 Forsberg A, Widman L, Bottai M. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer in Sweden from 2003 to 2012: Survival, tumor characteristics, and risk factors. J Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 2724-2733.e2723
- 4 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925.e903
- 5 Rees CJ, Bevan R, Zimmermann-Fraedrich K. et al. Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators. Gut 2016; 65: 2045-2060
- 6 Sanduleanu S, le Clercq CMC, Dekker E. et al. Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature. Gut 2015; 64: 1257-1267
- 7 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer incidence projections: Australia, 2011 to 2020. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-incidence-projections-australia-2011-to-20/data
- 8 Govindarajan A, Rabeneck L, Yun L. et al. Population-based assessment of the outcomes in patients with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers. Gut 2016; 65: 971-976
- 9 Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ. et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2664-2669
- 10 Kim KO, Huh KC, Hong SP. et al. Frequency and characteristics of interval colorectal cancer in actual clinical practice: A KASID multicenter study. Gut Liver 2018; 12: 537-543
- 11 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Eng J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
- 12 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Eng J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
- 13 Burr NE, Derbyshire E, Taylor J. et al. Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study. BMJ 2019; 367: l6090
- 14 Haanstra JF, Vasen HFA, Sanduleanu S. et al. Quality colonoscopy and risk of interval cancer in Lynch syndrome. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28: 1643-1649
- 15 Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S. et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-1195
- 16 Kuntz KM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM. et al. A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: the role of assumptions about adenoma progression. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 530-539
- 17 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. Gut 2012; 61: 1576
- 18 Goldsbury DE, Yap S, Weber MF. et al. Health services costs for cancer care in Australia: Estimates from the 45 and Up Study. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0201552
- 19 Devlin N, Scuffham P. Health today versus health tomorrow: does Australia really care less about its future health than other countries do?. Aust Health Rev 2020; 44: 337-339
- 20 Edney LC, Haji Ali Afzali H, Cheng TC. et al. Estimating the reference incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Australian Health System. Pharmacoecon 2018; 36: 239-252
- 21 American Cancer Society. Anal Cancer Survival Rates. 2021 https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/anal-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html
- 22 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Deaths in Australia. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-deaths/deaths-in-australia/contents/about
- 23 American Cancer Society. Survival rates for gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/gastrointestinal-carcinoid-tumor/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html
- 24 National Cancer Control Indicators. Relative survival by stage at diagnosis (colorectal cancer). Canberra (AU): NCCI; 2019. https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au/outcomes/relative-survival-rate/relative-survival-stage-diagnosis-colorectal-cancer
- 25 Shafqat H, Ali S, Salhab M. et al. Survival of patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma of the colon and rectum: a population-based analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58: 294-303
- 26 Ladabaum U. The Stanford Colonoscopy Quality Assurance Program: Lessons from the intersection of quality improvement and clinical research. Gastroenterology 2023; 164: 861-865
- 27 Subramaniam K, Ang PW, Neeman T. et al. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers identified by probabilistic and deterministic linkage: results in an Australian prospective cohort. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e026138
- 28 Dossa F, Sutradhar R, Saskin R. et al. Clinical and endoscopist factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in a population-based sample. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23: 635-645
- 29 Erichsen R, Baron JA, Stoffel EM. et al. Characteristics and survival of interval and sporadic colorectal cancer patients: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1332-1340
- 30 Ertem FU, Ladabaum U, Mehrotra A. et al. Incidence of interval colorectal cancer attributable to an endoscopist in clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 705-711.e701
- 31 Ferrández A, Navarro M, Díez M. et al. Risk factors for advanced lesions undetected at prior colonoscopy: not always poor preparation. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 1071-1076
- 32 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M. et al. Invasive colorectal cancer within 5 years of negative colonoscopy in a Japanese population. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 1090-1094
- 33 Lam AY, Li Y, Gregory DL. et al. Association between improved adenoma detection rates and interval colorectal cancer rates after a quality improvement program. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 355-364.e355
- 34 Lamba M, Khaing MM, Ma X. et al. Post-colonoscopy cancer rate at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia: A data linkage analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 38: 740-746
- 35 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963
- 36 Schwarz S, Hornschuch M, Pox C. et al. Polyp detection rate and cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Germany. Int J Cancer 2023; 152: 1547-1555
- 37 Waldmann E, Penz D, Šinkovec H. et al. Interval cancer after colonoscopy in the Austrian National Screening Programme: influence of physician and patient factors. Gut 2021; 70: 1309-1317
- 38 Zorzi M, Antonelli G, Amidei CB. et al. Adenoma detection rate and colorectal cancer risk in fecal immunochemical test screening programs. Ann Intern Med 2023; 176: 303-310
- 39 Zessner-Spitzenberg J, Waldmann E, Jiricka L. et al. Comparison of adenoma detection rate and proximal serrated polyp detection rate and their effect on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer mortality in screening patients. Endoscopy 2022; 55: 434-441
- 40 Kutyla MJ, Gray MA, von Hippel C. et al. Improving the quality of bowel preparation: rewarding patients for success or intensive patient education?. Dig Dis 2021; 39: 113-118
- 41 Kutyla MJ, O’Connor S, Hourigan LF. et al. An evidence-based approach towards targeted patient education to improve bowel preparation for colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 54: 707-713
- 42 Aronchick C. Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 2667
- 43 Kutyla M, O’Connor S, Gurusamy Saravana R. et al. Influence of simethicone added to the rinse water during colonoscopies on polyp detection rates: Results of an unintended cohort study. Digestion 2018; 98: 217-221
- 44 Moy N, Dulleck U, Shah A. et al. Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 735-742.e733
- 45 O’Connor SA, Hewett DG, Watson MO. et al. Accuracy of polyp localization at colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 2016; 04: E642-E646
- 46 Ma K, Melson J. Connecting colonoscopy quality improvement initiatives with reduced rates of interval colorectal cancers. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 365-367
