Skip to main content
Log in

Factors to Improve Endoscopic Screening for Colorectal Cancer

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is one of the most sprayed cancers; the gold standard of diagnostic is a colonoscopy. The quality of this examination is depended on many factors, which includes doctors’ experience.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to establish the main factors affecting the completeness of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

Materials and methods

Endoscopists were questioned; descriptive statistics methods and logistic regression were used.

Results and discussion

The main factors that influence the quality of screening colonoscopy were identified: experience in colonoscopy, theoretical training, participation in the screening program, and number of annual colonoscopies. The calculated odds ratio for the selected dependent variable is calculated.

Conclusions

The experience for more than 5 years (p = 0.017) and at least 200 colonoscopies per year (p = 0.004) are the main factors that allow to perform complete colonoscopy in 90% or more of cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lopez G, Christie AJ, Powers-James C, Bae MS, Dibaj SS, Gomez T, et al. The effects of inpatient music therapy on self-reported symptoms at an academic cancer center: a preliminary report. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(11):4207–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):249–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chilton A, Rutter M. Quality assurance guidelines for colonoscopy. Sheffield: NHS BCSP Publication; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zhong C, Tan S, Ren Y, Lü M, Peng Y, Fu X, et al. Clinical outcomes of over-the-scope-clip system for the treatment of acute upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019;19(1):225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yom-Tov E, Lebwohl B. Adverse events associated with colonoscopy; an examination of online concerns. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019;19(1):207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Phisalprapa P, Supakankunti S, Chaiyakunapruk N. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of colorectal cancer screenings in a low- and middle-income country: example from Thailand. J Med Econ. 2019;22(12):1351–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF, Chilton A, Rutter M, Dumonceau JM, et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2012;44:957–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Faigel DO, Cotton PB. The London OMED position statement for credentialing and quality assurance in digestive endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2009;41:1069–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. The Blue Book. Speciality training programme and curriculum for gastroenterology and hepatology. 2012. https://wwweuboghorg/ Accessed 15 November 2019.

  11. Yadov VA. Sociological research. Samara: Samara University; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dobrenkov VI, Kravchenko AI. Methods of sociological research. Moscow: Infra-M; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rahman EM, Wills J. An evaluation of a public health practitioner registration programme: lessons learned for workforce development. Perspect Public Health. 2014;134(5):259–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Khalfin RA, Madiyanova VV, Stolbov AP, Svistunov AA, Orlov SA, Bakulina AA, Efimova AO, Tatarinova TA, Gil AY. The concept of patient-oriented model of organization of medical care. Problemy Sotsial'Noi Gigieny, Zdravookhraneniia i Istorii Meditsiny. 2018;26(6):418–423.

  15. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Shah M, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2011: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(1):8–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nadel MR, Shapiro JA, Klabunde CN, Seeff LC, Uhler R, Smith RA, et al. Factors predicting fecal occult blood testing among residents of Bushehr, Iran, based on the health belief model. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nadel MR, Berkowitz Z, Klabunde CN, Smith RA, Coughlin SS, White MC. Fecal occult blood testing beliefs and practices of U.S. primary care physicians: serious deviations from evidence-based recommendations. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:833–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1328-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hata T, Takemasa I, Takahashi H, Haraguchi N, Nishimura J, Hata T, et al. Downregulation of serum metabolite GTA-446 as a novel potential marker for early detection of colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2017;117(2):227–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Arystan LI, Muldaeva GM, Haydargalieva LS, Pakhomova DK, Iskakov YB. The state of the red blood cell membrane in iron deficiency anaemia in women of reproductive age. Periodico Tche Quimica. 2019;16(32):471–484.

  20. Dzhumabekov SA, Isakov BD, Nurudin Uulu B, Sheraliev AA. Some parameters of the immune system at injuries in highland conditions. Periodico Tche Quimica. 2019;16(32):321–327.

  21. Bespalov YG, Vysotska O, Porvan A, Linnyk E, Stasenko VA, Doroshenko GD, et al. Information system for recognition of biological objects in the RGB spectrum range. In: Information technology in medical diagnostics II - Proceedings of the international scientific internet conference on computer graphics and image processing and 48th international scientific and practical conference on application of lasers in medicine and biology, 30–31 May 2018, Vinnytsia, Ukraine. 2019. pp. 101–110.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maulen S. Malgazhdarov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Higher School of Public Health of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malgazhdarov, M.S., Madyarov, V.M., Kaliaskarov, Y.S. et al. Factors to Improve Endoscopic Screening for Colorectal Cancer. J Gastrointest Canc 52, 289–293 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-020-00402-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-020-00402-2

Keywords

Navigation