Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep;155(3):909-925.e3.
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.05.038. Epub 2018 Jun 27.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer

Matthew D Rutter  1 , Iosif Beintaris  2 , Roland Valori  3 , Han Mo Chiu  4 , Douglas A Corley  5 , Miriam Cuatrecasas  6 , Evelien Dekker  7 , Anna Forsberg  8 , Jola Gore-Booth  9 , Ulrike Haug  10 , Michal F Kaminski  11 , Takahisa Matsuda  12 , Gerrit A Meijer  13 , Eva Morris  14 , Andrew A Plumb  15 , Linda Rabeneck  16 , Douglas J Robertson  17 , Robert E Schoen  18 , Harminder Singh  19 , Jill Tinmouth  20 , Graeme P Young  21 , Silvia Sanduleanu  22
Affiliations
Free article

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer

Matthew D Rutter et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Sep.
Free article

Abstract

Background & aims: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]).

Methods: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach.

Results: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon.

Conclusions: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.

Keywords: AGREE II; CT Colonography; Colonoscopy; Quality Measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types