Factors Associated With Incomplete Colonoscopy: A Population-Based Study

Shah, Hemant; Paszat, Lawrence; Saskin, Refik; Stukel, Thérèse A.; Rabeneck, Linda

doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.032

Cited by 294 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…57,58 Risk factors for poor bowel preparation quality include older age, overweight, diabetes and other comorbidities. 59,60 In those individuals for whom colonoscopy is difficult and therefore unsuccessful, it is probably inappropriate to recommend repeated colonoscopic surveillance; alternative surveillance strategies need to be explored.…”

Section: Examination Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

Atkin

Brenner

Martin

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 04/33/01. The contractual start date was in September 2006. The draft report began editorial review in March 2015 and was accepted for publication in December 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by...

show abstract

Section: Examination Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

Atkin

Brenner

Martin

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings confirm results from other studies that show that women do not tolerate colonoscopy as well and have fewer polyps than men. 90,91 The ability of CTC to detect abnormalities outside the colon was also investigated. Extracolonic findings were reported in around 60% of patients undergoing CTC in both this and the parallel trial of CTC compared with BE.…”

Section: Colonoscopy Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials)

Halligan

Dadswell

Wooldrage

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComputed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new diagnostic test that may be superior to existing alternatives to investigate the large bowel.ObjectivesTo compare the diagnostic efficacy, acceptability, safety and cost-effectiveness of CTC with barium enema (BE) or colonoscopy.DesignParallel randomised trials: BE compared with CTC and colonoscopy compared with CTC (randomisation 2 : 1, respectively).SettingA total of 21 NHS hospitals.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 55 years with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (CRC).InterventionsCTC, BE and colonoscopy.Main outcome measuresFor the trial of CTC compared with BE, the primary outcome was the detection rate of CRC and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), with the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation as a secondary outcome. For the trial of CTC compared with colonoscopy, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation, with the detection rate of CRC and large polyps as a secondary outcome. Secondary outcomes for both trials were miss rates for cancer (via registry data), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, patient acceptability, extracolonic pathology and cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 8484 patients were registered and 5384 were randomised and analysed (BE trial: 2527 BE, 1277 CTC; colonoscopy trial: 1047 colonoscopy, 533 CTC). Detection rates in the BE trial were 7.3% (93/1277) for CTC, compared with 5.6% (141/2527) for BE (p = 0.0390). The difference was due to better detection of large polyps by CTC (3.6% vs. 2.2%;p = 0.0098), with no significant difference for cancer (3.7% vs. 3.4%;p = 0.66). Significantly more patients having CTC underwent additional investigation (23.5% vs. 18.3%;p = 0.0003). At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for CRC was 6.7% for CTC (three missed cancers) and 14.1% for BE (12 missed cancers). Significantly more patients randomised to CTC than to colonoscopy underwent additional investigation (30% vs. 8.2%;p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in detection rates for cancer or large polyps (10.7% for CTC vs. 11.4% for colonoscopy;p = 0.69), with no difference when cancers (p = 0.94) and large polyps (p = 0.53) were analysed separately. At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for cancer was nil for colonoscopy and 3.4% for CTC (one missed cancer). Adverse events were uncommon for all procedures. In 1042 of 1748 (59.6%) CTC examinations, at least one extracolonic finding was reported, and this proportion increased with age (p < 0.0001). A total of 149 patients (8.5%) were subsequently investigated, and extracolonic neoplasia was diagnosed in 79 patients (4.5%) and malignancy in 29 (1.7%). In the short term, CTC was significantly more acceptable to patients than BE or colonoscopy. Total costs for CTC and colonoscopy were finely balanced, but CTC was associated with higher health-care costs than BE. The cost per large polyp or cancer detected was £4235 (95% confidence interval £395 to £9656).ConclusionsCTC is superior to BE for detection of cancers and large polyps in symptomatic patients. CTC and colonoscopy detect a similar proportion of large polyps and cancers and their costs are also similar. CTC precipitates significantly more additional investigations than either BE or colonoscopy, and evidence-based referral criteria are needed. Further work is recommended to clarify the extent to which patients initially referred for colonoscopy or BE undergo subsequent abdominopelvic imaging, for example by computed tomography, which will have a significant impact on health economic estimates.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the UK Department of Health, which stipulated a randomised controlled design but had no involvement in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, in writing the report, or in the decision to submit for publication. This was also the case for manufacturers who donated equipment for the study (Bracco UK Ltd, High Wycombe, UK; Viatronix Inc., Stony Brook, NY, USA; Medicsight plc, London, UK; Barco Ltd, Bracknell, UK).

show abstract

“…The frequency of incomplete colonoscopy (IC) has been reported to be 5-24% (2). The main causes of IC include fixed or long loops, redundant or tortuous sigmoid colon, severe diverticular disease, adhesions in patients with previous abdominal surgery, obstructive colorectal cancer, poor bowel cleansing and discomfort in non-sedated patients (3). Data support the role of an additional procedure to complete the examination of the colon in order to rule out lesions in segments not viewed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic impact of colon capsule endoscopy with PillCam COLON 2 after incomplete standard colonoscopy: a Spanish multicenter study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative approach for the examination of the colon in patients who refuse colonoscopy or after incomplete colonoscopy (IC). We conducted a study to determine the frequency of complete colonoscopy after IC, the diagnostic yield of CCE, the therapeutic impact of lesions found in CCE, the level of colon cleanliness and the safety of the procedure.Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter study involving ten Spanish hospitals. Consecutive outpatients aged ≥ 18 years with previous IC were invited to participate. The latest version of the CCE device, PillCam™ COLON 2 (CCE-2), was administered to all patients according to the protocol.Results: The study population comprised 96 patients. The most frequent cause of IC was the inability to move past a loop using standard maneuvers (75/96 patients, 78%). Complete visualization of the colon was obtained with CCE-2 in 69 patients (71.9%). Of the 27 patients in whom the CCE-2 did not reach the hemorrhoidal plexus, it passed the colonic segment explored with the previous colonoscopy in 20 cases; therefore, it could be inferred that a combined approach (CCE-2 plus colonoscopy) enabled complete visualization of the colonic mucosa in 92.7% of patients. CCE-2 revealed new lesions in 58 patients (60.4%). Polyps were the most frequent finding (41 patients; 42.7% of the total number of patients). In 43 of the 58 patients (44.8% of the total number of patients), the new lesions observed led to modification of therapy, which included a new colonoscopy for polyp resection or surgery in patients with colonic neoplasm.Conclusions: CCE-2 is a suitable diagnostic procedure that can lead to more frequent diagnosis of significant colonic lesions after IC.

show abstract

Factors Associated With Incomplete Colonoscopy: A Population-Based Study

Cited by 294 publications

References 16 publications

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials)

Therapeutic impact of colon capsule endoscopy with PillCam COLON 2 after incomplete standard colonoscopy: a Spanish multicenter study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Factors Associated With Incomplete Colonoscopy: A Population-Based Study

Cited by 294 publications

References 16 publications

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials)

Therapeutic impact of colon capsule endoscopy with PillCam COLON 2 after incomplete standard colonoscopy: a Spanish multicenter study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Therapeutic impact of colon capsule endoscopy with PillCam COLON 2 after incomplete standard colonoscopy: a Spanish multicenter study