Utilization and reproducibility of World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithms: retrospective analysis

Abstract

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed following a cancer-negative colonoscopy is termed post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). In addition to calculating PCCRC rates, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends review of individual PCCRC cases, including categorization into interval/non-interval PCCRCs, and root cause analysis to determine the most plausible explanation. We aimed to test the usability, reproducibility, and outcomes of the WEO algorithms.

Methods All CRC cases diagnosed from January 2015 to December 2016 in a single organization were cross referenced with local endoscopy and pathology databases to identify cases of PCCRC. We assessed: 1) WEO most plausible explanation for PCCRC; and 2) WEO PCCRC interval/non-interval subtype categorization. Interobserver agreement was measured using Cohen’s kappa (κ). Cases with interobserver variation underwent panel discussion to reach consensus.

Results Among 527 patients with CRC, 48 PCCRCs were identified. A consistent most plausible explanation was found in 97 % of cases, showing almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.94). Most PCCRCs (66 %) were attributed to “possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate.” Interval/non-interval categorization was consistent in 77 %, showing substantial agreement (κ = 0.67). Following panel discussion, consensus was reached in all cases. Overall, 15 % were categorized as interval and 85 % as non-interval PCCRCs (12 % type A, 31 % type B, and 42 % type C).

Conclusions Review of PCCRC cases using WEO recommendations was performed accurately at a local level using readily available clinical information. The high number of non-interval type B PCCRCs suggests a significant proportion of PCCRCs could be avoided by better adherence to recommended surveillance intervals.

Publication History

Received: 25 September 2020

Accepted after revision: 05 March 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
05 March 2021

Article published online:
04 May 2021

• References

• 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. New Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 2 Lanspa SJ, Lynch HT. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1371 author reply 1373
• 3 Corley DA, Levin TR, Doubeni CA. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 2541
• 4 Burr NE, Derbyshire E, Taylor J. et al. Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study. BMJ 2019; 367: 6090
• 5 Anderson R, Burr NE, Valori R. Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1287-1299
• 6 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925
• 7 Royal College of Physicians. Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) Accreditation Standards for GI Endoscopy. https://www.thejag.org.uk/Downloads/JAG/Accreditation2016
• 8 Sanduleanu S, le Clercq CM, Dekker E. et al. Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature. Gut 2015; 64: 1257-1267
• 9 Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ. et al. Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut 2010; 59: 666-689
• 10 Atkin WS, Saunders BP. British Society for Gastroenterology; Association of Coloproctology for Great Britain and Ireland. Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 2002; 51 (Suppl. 05) V6-9
• 11 Rutter MD, East J, Rees CJ. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines. Gut 2020; 69: 201-223
• 12 Peerally MF, Carr S, Waring J. et al. The problem with root cause analysis. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26: 417-422
• 13 Millwood S. Developing a platform for learning from mistakes: changing the culture of patient safety amongst junior doctors. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2014; 3: u203658.w2114
• 14 O’Connor SA, Hewett DG, Watson MO. et al. Accuracy of polyp localization at colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E642-E646
• 15 Loeve F, Boer R, Zauber AG. et al. National Polyp Study data: evidence for regression of adenomas. Int J Cancer 2004; 111: 633-639