Back to Journals » Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology » Volume 4

Assessment of quality in screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer

Authors Gonçalves AR, Ferreira C, Marques A, Carrilho Ribeiro L, Velosa J

Published 9 December 2011 Volume 2011:4 Pages 277—281

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CEG.S25596

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 4

Ana Rita Gonçalves, Carlos Ferreira, António Marques, Luís Carrilho Ribeiro, José Velosa
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hospital Santa Maria-CHLN, Lisboa 1068, Portugal

Introduction: The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in decreasing the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely dependent on the detection of polyps and the quality of the procedure. Several key quality measures have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of screening colonoscopies.
Aim: To evaluate quality indicators of screening colonoscopy in a tertiary hospital.
Methods: All CRC screening colonoscopies performed between 2005 and 2009 in a single tertiary center were reviewed for internationally accepted quality measures.
Results: Of the 1545 individuals who underwent first-time screening colonoscopy 38% were male and 62% were female. The mean age of the patients was 60.4 years and the mean difference in ages was ± 10.3 years. Cecal intubation rate was 91% (1336), however ileocecal valve photo documentation was performed in only 81% (1248) colonoscopies. The quality of bowel preparation was classified as: good 76% (1171), reasonable 11% (174), and poor 13% (200). Polyp detection rate (PDR) was 33% (503). The prevalence of polyps ≥1 cm in size was 5% (82). PDR was significantly higher in men than in women (44% [260] vs 25% [243], P = 0.0001). Other factors significantly influencing PDR were quality of bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR]: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9–1.6) and age over 50 (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3–2.9). Left colonic polyps were associated with a risk ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 1.8–2.9) of lesions in the other colonic segments compared to no polyps in the left colon. None of the colonoscopists reported withdrawal time.
Conclusion: Cecal intubation rate and quality of bowel preparation were suboptimal. The polyp detection rate compares favorably to accepted standards and its main determinants are male sex, age >50 years, quality of bowel preparation, and the presence of left colonic polyps.

Keywords: colorectal cancer, screening colonoscopy, quality indicators

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Readers of this article also read:

Emerging and future therapies for hemophilia

Carr ME, Tortella BJ

Journal of Blood Medicine 2015, 6:245-255

Published Date: 3 September 2015

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

A novel preparation method for silicone oil nanoemulsions and its application for coating hair with silicone

Hu Z, Liao M, Chen Y, Cai Y, Meng L, Liu Y, Lv N, Liu Z, Yuan W

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5719-5724

Published Date: 12 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010