Original StudyInterval Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States.1, 2 The 5-year survival rate is 90% if the disease is localized at the time of diagnosis, but this rate decreases to 68% if it is spread regionally, and further decreases to 10% if distant metastases have developed.1 The relatively slow progression from a benign but detectable adenoma to invasive cancer provides the opportunity to devise a screening and treatment strategy that detects and removes neoplastic tissues while they are still treatable. Most deaths from CRCs can be prevented with regular colonoscopy coupled with the removal of polyps.2, 3, 4
Currently, the preferred strategy dictates that individuals older than the age of 50 should have a colonoscopy every 10 years, with high-risk patients screened more frequently.5 Adenomas can be reduced by 76% to 90%, with a significant reduction in CRC mortality, in patients who undergo a clearing colonoscopy.5, 6 However, this strategy is not perfect, because cancers are observed during the time interval between the initial colonoscopy and the recommended follow-up examination, which are called ‘interval cancers.’ These can be the result of a rapidly growing tumor which becomes established after the initial examination or there could be a cancerous or precancerous lesion that was not appreciated or removed during the initial examination. Studies have found miss rates of 5% to 16.8% for polyps, with smaller polyps being missed more often, and advanced adenomas being missed in 5.4% of colonoscopies.7, 8, 9 Population- or clinical registry-based studies suggest that interval colon cancers account for 3% to 9% of cancer patients but will increase as screening programs extend to more people.10, 11, 12 We began monitoring our patient population for interval cancers as part of an institutional quality management program and to improve our understanding of the characteristics of the patients, and the procedures. As a provider center we had access to clinical data not available in registry programs, allowing us to identify factors that could potentially affect the interval cancer rate. Thus, we report a single-institution experience which has the advantage of having more specific clinical data and a heterogeneous patient population including post-neoplasia surveillance patients, which is representative of practice in the United States.
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
We used our endoscopy unit's electronic endoscopic report writer, ProVation MD (ProVation Medical, Minneapolis, MN) to identify all individuals who had a colonoscopy between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006 at Massachusetts General Hospital. Individuals younger than the age of 18, those with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, or whose endoscopic examination was a flexible sigmoidoscopy were excluded from this population. A total of 86,005 colonoscopies were performed on 75,314
Results
Of the 86,005 colonoscopies performed during our study period, 77 of these examinations resulted in an instance of interval cancer (0.090%). If the interval window was shortened to 3 years, there were 37 cases (0.043%). In a review of examinations that were indicated for cancer screening and/or family history of colon cancer or polyps, we found 27 interval cancer cases out of a total of 36,992 examinations (0.073%). In a review of only screening examinations, we found only 17 interval cancers,
Discussion
As screening with colonoscopy becomes more widely used, interval cancers will become proportionally more prevalent and might have differing clinical characteristics. Our analysis of a heterogeneous and realistic clinical population, with access to their primary medical records, identified features that could help predict which patients are at higher risk and might benefit from more frequent screening or an altered approach to screening. The current screening strategy is highly effective, but
Conclusion
Results of our study suggest that identification and screening of high-risk patients such as older patients with a history of neoplasia, and thorough examination, including an examination of the cecum, are important for cancer detection. Patient risk factors should be considered in devising cancer screening strategies, which might be different from high-risk surveillance recommendations. Interval cancers should be considered a practical quality indicator and can be measured in cancer centers
Acknowledgments
This study was funded, in part, by a grant from the Oliver S. and Jennie R. Donaldson Charitable Trust. Wendy Ho, MD, and William Puricelli, BSN, contributed to the data collection and analysis of earlier portions of this study.
References (32)
- et al.
Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology
Gastroenterology
(2008) - et al.
Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
Gastroenterology
(2006) - et al.
Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence
Gastroenterology
(2003) - et al.
Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps
Gastrointest Endosc
(1991) - et al.
Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis
Gastroenterology
(2007) - et al.
Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary polyp prevention trial
Gastrointest Endosc
(2005) - et al.
Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
(2010) - et al.
Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer
Gastroenterology
(2011) - et al.
Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter trial
Gastrointest Endosc
(2005) - et al.
Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer: evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals
Gastrointest Endosc
(1997)
Performing a quality colonoscopy: just slow down!
Gastrointest Endosc
Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy
N Engl J Med
Five-year risk of colorectal neoplasia after negative screening colonoscopy
N Engl J Med
Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths
N Engl J Med
The miss rate for colorectal adenoma determined by quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies
Gut Liver
Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy
Ann Intern Med
Cited by (30)
Characteristics and consequences of missed gastric cancer: A multicentric cohort study
2019, Digestive and Liver DiseaseCitation Excerpt :The most frequent location of MGC was the gastric body, but no significant differences with non-MGC were detected. Contrary to colorectal neoplasia where right colon has been consistently proven to be a risk factor for missed cancer [20–23], it does not seem to be a relationship between location and MGC [24]. Another important finding was that despite MGC was more often diagnosed at stage I–II, one-year and two-year survival remained discouraging.
Maximizing the Effectiveness of Colonoscopy in the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer
2018, Surgical Oncology Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Large, population-based studies have demonstrated that approximately 6% of colorectal cancers are interval cancers.4 Interval cancers are more likely to be diagnosed in patients over the age of 60, in those who have a family history of colorectal cancer, in those who have an index colonoscopy with a previously detected adenoma, and to occur on the right side of the colon.4,5 The cause of interval cancers is thought to be 3-fold: undetected adenomatous polyps, incomplete resection of adenomatous polyps, and the interval growth of aggressive adenomatous lesions.6
Insertion water exchange increases right colon adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection rates during withdrawal
2016, Digestive and Liver DiseaseCitation Excerpt :Our current data show that the significant effect of WE on ADR in the proximal colon was primarily due to the significant increase in the right colon (Table 3). Taken together, the literature data discussed above [18–23,26–35] suggest that our findings may contribute to addressing the issue of interval CRCs due to missed lesions. This hypothesis deserves to be tested in future studies.
Water assisted colonoscopy: A promising new technique
2016, Digestive and Liver DiseaseInterval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy
2019, Revista de Gastroenterologia de MexicoColorectal cancer missed during colonoscopies
2023, Colonoscopy: Screening, Procedures and Preparation