Overuse of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance
- PMID: 25266407
- PMCID: PMC4351286
- DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3015-6
Overuse of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance
Abstract
Background: Ongoing efforts to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have raised concerns that these exams may be overused, thereby subjecting patients to unnecessary risks and wasting healthcare resources.
Objective: Our aim was to measure overuse of screening and surveillance colonoscopies among average-risk adults, and to identify correlates of overuse.
Design, setting, and participants: Our approach was a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data for patients 50-65 years old with no personal history of CRC or colorectal adenomas with an incident CRC screening colonoscopy from 2001 to 2010 within a multispecialty physician group practice.
Main outcome measures: We measured time to next screening or surveillance colonoscopy and predictors of overuse (exam performed more than one year earlier than guideline recommended intervals) of colonoscopies.
Key results: We identified 1,429 adults who had an incident colonoscopy between 2001 and 2010, and they underwent an additional 871 screening or surveillance colonoscopies during a median follow-up of 6 years. Most follow-up screening colonoscopies (88%) and many surveillance colonoscopies (49%) repeated during the study represented overuse. Time to next colonoscopy after incident screening varied by exam findings (no polyp: median 6.9 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 5.1-10.0; hyperplastic polyp: 5.7 years, IQR: 4.9-9.7; low-risk adenoma: 5.1 years, IQR: 3.3-6.3; high-risk adenoma: 2.9 years, IQR: 2.0-3.4, p < 0.001). In logistic regression models of colonoscopy overuse, an endoscopist recommendation for early follow-up was strongly associated with overuse of screening colonoscopy (OR 6.27, 95% CI: 3.15-12.50) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 13.47, 95% CI 6.61-27.46). In a multilevel logistic regression model, variation in the overuse of screening colonoscopy was significantly associated with the endoscopist performing the previous exam.
Conclusions: Overuse of screening and surveillance exams are common and should be monitored by healthcare systems. Variations in endoscopist recommendations represent targets for interventions to reduce overuse.
Figures
Comment in
-
Going against medical advice: PCPs' role in reducing colonoscopy overuse.J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30(3):269-70. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3097-1. J Gen Intern Med. 2015. PMID: 25391602 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Physician Non-adherence to Colonoscopy Interval Guidelines in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.Gastroenterology. 2015 Oct;149(4):938-51. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.06.026. Epub 2015 Jun 26. Gastroenterology. 2015. PMID: 26122143
-
Interval cancer after colonoscopy in the Austrian National Screening Programme: influence of physician and patient factors.Gut. 2021 Jul;70(7):1309-1317. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319427. Epub 2020 Oct 6. Gut. 2021. PMID: 33023903
-
Colonoscopist Performance and Colorectal Cancer Risk After Adenoma Removal to Stratify Surveillance: Two Nationwide Observational Studies.Gastroenterology. 2021 Mar;160(4):1067-1074.e6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.009. Epub 2020 Oct 14. Gastroenterology. 2021. PMID: 33065063
-
Colonoscopy: a review of its yield for cancers and adenomas by indication.Am J Gastroenterol. 1995 Mar;90(3):353-65. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995. PMID: 7872270 Review.
-
Recommended intervals between screening and surveillance colonoscopies.Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Aug;88(8):854-8. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.04.023. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013. PMID: 23910411 Review.
Cited by
-
Effect of alverine citrate plus simethicone in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.Sci Rep. 2024 May 27;14(1):12035. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62922-2. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38802518 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program.Endosc Int Open. 2024 May 3;12(5):E649-E658. doi: 10.1055/a-2297-9622. eCollection 2024 May. Endosc Int Open. 2024. PMID: 38707595 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study.BMC Gastroenterol. 2023 Oct 6;23(1):347. doi: 10.1186/s12876-023-02981-3. BMC Gastroenterol. 2023. PMID: 37803276 Free PMC article.
-
Development and validation of a risk prediction model for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer in the USA: a prospective cohort study.EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Aug 10;62:102139. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102139. eCollection 2023 Aug. EClinicalMedicine. 2023. PMID: 37599907 Free PMC article.
-
Use of surveillance colonoscopy among individuals with removal of high-risk polyps according to the US Multi-Society Task Force recommendations.Cancer. 2023 May 1;129(9):1394-1401. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34692. Epub 2023 Feb 17. Cancer. 2023. PMID: 36807015 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, 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;134(5):1570–1595. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(6):1872–1885. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.03.012. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
