Surveillance colonoscopy in Austria: Are we following the guidelines?
submitted 13 March 2017
accepted after revision 04 August 2017
24 October 2017 (eFirst)
Background and study aim The European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis contain postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations. They recommend follow-up intervals depending on the findings at index colonoscopy, and divide patients into a low-, intermediate- or high-risk group. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence of Austrian endoscopists to the European guidelines and to determine whether sending a reminder letter resulted in better adherence.
Methods A single reminder letter containing the guidelines was sent to all endoscopists who participated in the Certificate of Quality for Screening Colonoscopy program in Austria. Adherence was assessed before and after the letter had been sent. Factors associated with adherence were investigated.
Results We found poor baseline adherence to the guidelines. After the reminder letter, the adherence slightly improved in the low-risk group, but did not change in the intermediate-risk or high-risk groups. An adenoma detection rate of at least 20 % was associated with higher adherence rates. Generally, internists and hospitals showed better adherence compared with surgeons and private practices, respectively, both before and after the reminder letter.
Conclusion A single reminder letter was not enough to improve the poor adherence to the European postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines. Thus, future studies are required to identify and eliminate all factors responsible for nonadherence to postpolypectomy guidelines in order to reach the goal of a safe, effective, and cost-effective colorectal cancer prevention tool in the near future.
- 1 Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1374-1403
- 2 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. New Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
- 3 Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF. et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8
- 4 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. New Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
- 5 Yamaji Y, Mitsushima T, Ikuma H. et al. Incidence and recurrence rates of colorectal adenomas estimated by annually repeated colonoscopies on asymptomatic Japanese. Gut 2004; 53: 568-572
- 6 Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M. et al. Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 34-41
- 7 Loeve F, van Ballegooijen M, Boer R. et al. Colorectal cancer risk in adenoma patients: a nation-wide study. Int J Cancer 2004; 111: 147-151
- 8 Laiyemo AO, Pinsky PF, Marcus PM. et al. Utilization and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in the continued follow-up study of the polyp prevention trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 562-567
- 9 Segnan N, Patnick J, Karsa Lv. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2010
- 10 Cottet V, Jooste V, Fournel I. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study. Gut 2012; 61: 1180-1186
- 11 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
- 12 Rees CJ, Bevan R, Zimmermann-Fraedrich K. et al. Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators. Gut 2016; 65: 2045-2060
- 13 Sohn DK. Colonoscopy Study Group of the Korean Society of Coloproctology. A survey of colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Coloproctol 2014; 30: 88-92
- 14 Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J. et al. Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 654-659
- 15 Tanaka S, Obata D, Chinzei R. et al. Surveillance after colorectal polypectomy; comparison between Japan and US. Kobe . J Med Sci 2011; 56: E204-213
- 16 van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW. et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584-1592
- 17 Schreuders E, Sint NicolaasJ, de Jonge V. et al. The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 33-38
- 18 Mulder SA, Ouwendijk RJ, van Leerdam ME. et al. A nationwide survey evaluating adherence to guidelines for follow-up after polypectomy or treatment for colorectal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 42: 487-492
- 19 Waldmann E, Gessl I, Sallinger D. et al. Trends in quality of screening colonoscopy in Austria. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 1102-1109
- 20 Britto-Arias M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P. et al. Forceps versus snare polypectomies in colorectal cancer screening: are we adhering to the guidelines?. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 898-902
- 21 Kozbial K, Reinhart K, Heinze G. et al. High quality of screening colonoscopy in Austria is not dependent on endoscopist specialty or setting. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 207-216
- 22 Ferlitsch M, Heinze G, Salzl P. et al. Sex is a stronger predictor of colorectal adenoma and advanced adenoma than fecal occult blood test. Med Oncol 2014; 31: 151
- 23 Ferlitsch M, Salzl P, Weiss W. et al. [Recommendations of the ÖGGH for colorectal cancer screening and follow-up after colonoscopic polypectomy.] [Article in German]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol Dis 2012; 10: 29-30
- 24 van Kooten H, de Jonge V, Schreuders E. et al. Awareness of postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: a nationwide survey of colonoscopists in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 26: 79-84
- 25 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ. et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
- 26 Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ. et al. Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut 2010; 59: 666-689
- 27 Hong SN, Yang DH, Kim YH. et al. [Korean guidelines for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance]. Korean J Gastroenterol 2012; 59: 99-117
- 28 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
- 29 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
- 30 Saini SD, Nayak RS, Kuhn L. et al. Why don't gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines?: results of a national survey. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 43: 554-558
- 31 Menees SB, Elliott E, Govani S. et al. Adherence to recommended intervals for surveillance colonoscopy in average-risk patients with 1 to 2 small (<1 cm) polyps on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 551-557
- 32 Menees SB, Elliott E, Govani S. et al. The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 148-154
- 33 Rex DK. Colonoscopy: the current king of the hill in the USA. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 639-646