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
. 2023 May;72(5):951-957.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327696. Epub 2022 Oct 28.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials

Affiliations

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials

Frederik Emil Juul et al. Gut. 2023 May.

Abstract

Objective: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance.

Design: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients.

Results: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%).

Conclusion: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden.

Trial registration number: NCT02319928.

Keywords: COLONOSCOPY; ENDOSCOPIC POLYPECTOMY; POLYP; SURVEILLANCE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Study flow chart of patients included for analysis
Figure 2:
Figure 2:. Proportion of patients in EPoS I (low-risk adenomas, panel A) and EPoS II (high-risk adenomas, panel B) trials with two or more baseline colonoscopies at different endoscopy centers in participating countries.
Number of centers per country: Denmark 4, Norway 13, Poland 3, Spain 15, Sweden 3.
Figure 3:
Figure 3:. Proportion of patients in EPoS I (low-risk adenomas, panel A) and EPoS II (high-risk adenomas, panel B) trials with two or more baseline colonoscopies for participating endoscopists.
Number of endoscopists: EPoS I: 43, EPoS II: 74.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Helsingen LM, Vandvik PO, Jodal HC, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2019;367:l5515. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5515 [published Online First: 2019/10/04] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366(8):687–96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100370 [published Online First: 2012/02/24] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020;52(8):687–700. doi: 10.1055/a-1185-3109 [published Online First: 2020/06/24] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017;49(4):378–97. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-103411 [published Online First: 2017/03/08] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jover R, Dekker E, Schoen RE, et al. Colonoscopy quality requisites for selecting surveillance intervals: A World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Recommendation. Dig Endosc 2018;30(6):750–59. doi: 10.1111/den.13229 [published Online First: 2018/07/05] - DOI - PubMed

Associated data