Trends in pathology diagnoses during 10 years of a colorectal cancer screening programme

Abstract

AimsWe report pathology findings from the first 10 years of the faecal–occult blood‐based Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, presenting summary data and trends in pathology diagnoses and clinicopathological features of screen‐detected cancers.Methods and resultsData were analysed from a comprehensive polyp‐level pathology database representing all endoscopy specimens from programme inception in 2010 until 2021. A total of 9800 individuals underwent 13 472 endoscopy procedures, yielding 25 967 pathology specimens and 32 119 diagnoses. Index specimen diagnoses (4.1%) and index colonoscopies (10.4%) yielded a diagnosis of colorectal cancer, representing 1045 cancers from 1020 individuals (25 with synchronous cancers). A further 13 index cancers were identified via computed tomography colonography; 65.3% of cancer diagnoses were in males; 41.7% were stage I, 23.1% stage II, 25.8% stage III and 1.8% stage IV (7.6% unstaged). Of 233 pT1 cancers diagnosed within local excision specimens, 79 (33.9%) had completion surgery. Ten‐year trends showed a steady decline in the proportion of index colonoscopies that yielded a diagnosis of cancer (14.7% in year 1; 4.8% in year 11) or advanced colorectal polyp. There was a strong upward trend in diagnoses of sessile serrated lesions, which overtook hyperplastic polyps in proportions of total index diagnoses by the end of the study time‐frame (8.7% compared to 8.5%).ConclusionsOver the first 10 years of a population colorectal cancer screening programme, ‘real world’ pathology data demonstrate success in the form of reduced diagnoses of cancer and advanced colorectal polyp with passage of successive screening rounds. Interesting trends with respect to serrated polyp diagnoses are also evident, probably related to pathologist and endoscopist behaviour.

Trends in Detection of Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesions Over a Decade in a Community-Based Healthcare System

“…In addition, histologic criteria has changed over time for sessile serrated lesions, which has led to increased recognition of this new entity in both pathologists and endoscopists. Therefore, increased SSLDR over time may be partly contributed by pathologists ( 31 ). We were not able to account for variable experience of individual pathologists in interpreting sessile serrated lesions, which may introduce potential bias in our SSLDR calculation.…”