Advertisement

Open Access Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Prevention: An Evaluation of Appropriateness and Quality

  • Nikhil KapilaEmail author
  • Harjinder Singh
  • Kiranmayee Kandragunta
  • Fernando J. Castro
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Open access colonoscopy (OAC) has gained widespread acceptance and has the potential to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, there is little data evaluating its appropriateness for CRC prevention.

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of OAC in CRC screening and polyp surveillance by comparing to procedures ordered by gastroenterologists (NOAC). As secondary outcomes, we compared the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR) between OAC and NOAC.

Methods

It is retrospective single-center study. Inclusion criteria included patients > 50 years of age undergoing a colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance. Appropriateness was defined as those colonoscopies performed within 12 months of the recommended 2012 consensus guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation and ADR.

Results

5211 colonoscopies met inclusion criteria, and 64.9% were OAC. Screening OAC was appropriately 91.6% and NOAC 92.9% of the time (p = 0.179). Surveillance NOAC were inappropriate in 26.4% of cases, and surveillance OAC was 32.6% (p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that OAC did not influence ADR (OR for NOAC 0.97; 95% CI 0.86–1.1; p = 0.644) or an adequate bowel preparation (OR for NOAC 1.11; 95% CI 0.91–1.36; p = 0.306).

Conclusion

OAC performed similarly to NOAC for screening indications, quality of bowel preparation, and ADR. However, more surveillance procedures were inappropriate in the OAC group although both groups had a high number of inappropriate indications. Although OAC can be efficiently performed for screening indications, measures to decrease inappropriate surveillance colonoscopies are needed.

Keywords

Colonoscopy Colorectal neoplasms Colonoscopy standards Open access colonoscopy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Dr. Molly Moor, Meaghan McMahon, Dr. Hong Liang.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Lieberman D, Ladabaum U, Cruz-Correa M, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer and evolving issues for physicians and patients: a review. JAMA. 2016;316:2135–2145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rex DK, Johnson DA, Lieberman DA, et al. Colorectal cancer prevention 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:868–877.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Center for Diseases Control and Prevention. Colorectal cancer screening rates remain low. CDC Newsroom. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p1105-colorectal-cancer-screening.html. Accessed 15 May 2018.
  4. 4.
    Chandrasekhara V, Eloubeidi MA, Bruning DH, et al. Open-access Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riggs KR, Shin EJ, Segal JB. Office visits prior to screening colonoscopy. JAMA. 2016;315:514–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hadlock S, Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, et al. Open-access colonoscopy in Ontario: associated factors and quality. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013;27:341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing (abstr). Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2667.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-soda. Gastointest Endosc. 2000;52:346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahajan RJ, Barthel JS, Marshall JB. Appropriateness of referrals for open-access endoscopy. How do physicians in different medical specialties do? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2065–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minoli G, Meucci G, Bortoli A, et al. The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baron TH, Kimery BD, Sorbi D, et al. Strategies to address increased demand for colonoscopy: guidelines in an open endoscopy practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schreuders E, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, et al. The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013;27:33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heijningen E-MB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW, et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut. 2015;64:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ, et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:1933–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah TU, Voils CI, McNeil R, et al. Understanding gastroenterologist adherence to polyp surveillance guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1283–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghaoui R, Ramdass S, Friderici J, et al. Open access colonoscopy: critical appraisal of indications, quality metrics and outcomes. Dig Liver Dis. 2016;48:940–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balaguer F, Llach J, Castells A, et al. The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21:609–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Staff DM, Saeian K, Rochling F, et al. Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient? Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gurudu S, Ratuapli S, Heigh R, et al. Quality of bowel cleansing for afternoon colonoscopy is influenced by time of administration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2318–2322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fayad NF, Kahi CJ, Abd El-Jawad KH, et al. Association between body mass index and quality of split bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1478–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anklesaria, Ava B, Chudy-Onwugaje KO, et al. The effect of obesity on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results from a large observational study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018. (Epub ahead of print).  https://doi.org/10.1097/mcg.0000000000001045.
  25. 25.
    Printz C. New electronic health record use boosts colon cancer screening. Cancer. 2013;119:2949.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baker AN, Parsons M, Donnelly SM, et al. Improving colon cancer screening rates in primary care: a pilot study emphasizing the role of the medical assistant. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18:355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyCleveland Clinic FloridaWestonUSA

Personalised recommendations