World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer
Rutter, Matthew D.; Beintaris, Iosif; Valori, Roland; Chiu, Han Mo; Corley, Douglas A.; Cuatrecasas, Miriam; Dekker, Evelien; Forsberg, Anna; Gore-Booth, Jola; Haug, Ulrike; Kaminski, Michal F.; Matsuda, Takahisa; Meijer, Gerrit A.; Morris, Eva; Plumb, Andrew A.; Rabeneck, Linda; Robertson, Douglas J.; Schoen, Robert E.; Singh, Harminder; Tinmouth, Jill; Young, Graeme P.; Sanduleanu, Silvia
(2018) Gastroenterology, volume 155, issue 3, pp. 909 - 925.e3
(Article)
Abstract
Background & Aims: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)— some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy
... read more
colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]). Methods: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach. Results: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon. Conclusions: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.
show less
Download/Full Text
The full text of this publication is not available.
Keywords: AGREE II, Colonoscopy, CT Colonography, Quality Measures, Hepatology, Gastroenterology
ISSN: 0016-5085
Publisher: W.B. Saunders
Note: Funding Information: Conflicts of interest These authors disclose the following: Roland Valori is joint director of a small Limited Liability Partnership called Quality Solutions for Healthcare that provides advice and support for quality improvement and quality assurance within and outside of endoscopy, mostly in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It also delivers colonoscopy training internationally, some of which is reimbursed and some of which is not. Evelien Dekker has received a research grant from Olympus and endoscopic equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm. Andrew A. Plumb has received payment for educational lectures organized by Warner Chilcott, a pharmaceutical company, and the medical device company Acelity. Silvia Sanduleanu has received a research grant from Olympus, as well as speaker fees/travel reimbursement from Falk and AbbVie. Harminder Singh is a member of the Advisory Board for Pendopharm and has received research funding from Merck Canada. Jill Tinmouth is a paid Lead Scientist for the ColonCancerCheck program, the CRC screening program in Ontario. The remaining author disclose no conflicts. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 AGA Institute
(Peer reviewed)