4.6 Article

Colonoscopy later than 270 days in a fecal immunochemical test-based population screening program is associated with higher prevalence of colorectal cancer

期刊

ENDOSCOPY
卷 52, 期 10, 页码 871-876

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1159-0644

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

10-1055-a-1159-0644-i18655en0.gif Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) generate substantial pressure on colonoscopy capacity in Europe. Thus, a relevant proportion of FIT-positive patients undergo colonoscopy after the recommended 30-day interval, which may be associated with an excess CRC risk. Methods In a cohort of 50-69-year-old patients undergoing biennial rounds of FIT (OC-Hemodia latex agglutination test; cutoff 20 mu g hemoglobin/g feces) between 2004 and 2017, we assessed the outcome at colonoscopy (low/high risk adenoma/CRC/advanced stage CRC) among FIT-positive patients, according to different time intervals. The association of each outcome with waiting time, and demographic and clinical factors, was analyzed through multivariable analysis. Results 123138/154213 FIT-positive patients (79.8%) underwent post-FIT colonoscopy. Time to colonoscopy was <= 30 days, 31-180 days, and >= 181 days in 50406 (40.9%), 71724 (58.3%), and 1008 (0.8%) patients, respectively. At colonoscopy, CRC, high risk adenoma, and low risk adenoma were diagnosed in 4813 (3.9%), 30500 (24.8%), and 22986 (18.7%) patients, respectively. An increased CRC prevalence at colonoscopy was observed for a time to colonoscopy of >= 270 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-2.67), whereas it was stable for waiting times of <180 days. The proportion of advanced CRC also increased after 270 days (OR 2.79, 95%CI 1.03-7.57). No increase for low or high risk adenomas according to time to colonoscopy was observed. Conclusion In a European FIT-based screening program, post-FIT colonoscopy after 9 months was associated with an increased risk of CRC and CRC progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据