Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Colonoscopic cancer detection rate: a new performance measure – is it FIT for purpose?
  1. Khalid Bashir1,
  2. Iosif Beintaris2,
  3. Linda Sharp3,
  4. Julia Newton4,
  5. Katherine Elliott5,
  6. Jon Rees6,
  7. Peter Rogers7,
  8. Matt Rutter2
  1. 1 University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
  2. 2 Gastroenterology, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
  3. 3 Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  4. 4 Academic Health Science Network for the North East and North Cumbria, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  5. 5 Northern Cancer Alliance and GP Spring Terrace North Shields, North Shields, UK
  6. 6 School of Psychology Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
  7. 7 Weblogik.co.uk, Ipswich, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Iosif Beintaris, Gastroenterology, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Stockton-on-Tees, UK; iosif.beintaris{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Introduction Gastrointestinal symptoms correlate poorly with cancer diagnosis. A faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result of ≥10 µg has high sensitivity and negative predictive value for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. An FIT-based diagnostic pathway may lead to more effective resource utilisation. We aimed to use National Endoscopy Database (NED) data to create a new colonoscopy performance measure, cancer detection rate (CDR) to assess the appropriate identification of target populations for colonoscopy; then to use CDR to assess the impact of implementing an FIT-based referral pathway locally.

Methods NED data were analysed to compare local diagnostic colonoscopic CDR in 2019 (prepathway revision) and 2021 (postpathway revision), benchmarked against overall national CDR for the same time frames.

Results 1, 123, 624 NED diagnostic colonoscopies were analysed. Locally, there was a significant increase in CDR between 2019 and 2021, from 3.01% (2.45%–3.47%) to 4.32% (3.69%–4.95%), p=0.003. The CDR increase was due to both a 10% increase in the number of CRCs detected and a 25% reduction in the number of diagnostic colonoscopies performed. Nationally, there was a smaller, but significant, increase in CDR from 2.02% (1.99%–2.07%) to 2.33% (2.29%–2.37%), p<0.001. The rate of increase in CDR% between 2019 and 2021 was significantly different locally compared with nationally.

Conclusion Our study indicates that the introduction of a robustly vetted FIT-based algorithm to determine whether diagnostic colonoscopy is required, is effective in increasing the colonoscopic CDR. Moreover, CDR appears to be a meaningful performance metric that can be automatically calculated through NED, enabling monitoring of the quality of referral and vetting pathways.

  • colorectal cancer

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @iosifbeintaris, @Rutter_Matt

  • Contributors MR and IB conceived the local FIT-based diagnostic pathway, later developed into regional practice with input by KE, under the auspices of the Northern Cancer Alliance. JR performed statistical analyses for the project. All authors contributed to authorship and critical review of the manuscript. IB is the article guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles