Colonoscopy: how far is enough?

W H Isbister

doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.1995.tb01746.x

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7818422

Colonoscopy: how far is enough?

W H Isbister

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Total colonoscopy is arguably the best method available for examination of the colon and rectum. Colonoscopy costs are high and rising and it may be that in the future practitioners will be unable to afford to colonoscope all of the patients presently being examined. This retrospective study was undertaken in an attempt to examine the cost, in terms of lesions missed, of a limited endoscopy programme. During a 15 year period, 1426 colonoscopies were performed at Wellington Hospital, New Zealand. Total colonoscopy was possible in 79% of all patients. Three perforations occurred. Nine patients bled and two required blood transfusion after biopsy or 'snaring' of polyps. After exclusion of patients with continuous inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) 75% of all lesions were found in or distal to the descending colon. More cancers were found in patients colonoscoped because of bleeding. Thirty-two of 93 cancers diagnosed were proximal to the descending colon but 18 presented with bleeding. A further seven had a radiological abnormality. Only 7.5% of colorectal cancers would be missed by flexible sigmoidoscopy (65 cm) and 75% of the costs of total colonoscopy would be avoided if only patients presenting with bleeding and IBD were offered total colonoscopy and patients with radiological abnormalities were treated according to the abnormality. This compromise, based on the data presented, may represent a rational way to reduce colonoscopy costs.

Explore related subjects

Colonic Neoplasms Colonic Polyps Colonoscopy Colorectal Neoplasms Costs and Cost Analysis Female Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Humans Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Male Middle Aged Retrospective Studies Sigmoidoscopy Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

W H Isbister. 1995. Colonoscopy: how far is enough?. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1995.tb01746.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Racial disparities in colon cancer. Primary care endoscopy as a tool to increase screening rates among minority patients.

Colon cancer is a condition whose far-reaching effects have been well documented nationally and within the state of South Carolina. Fortunately, the disease is amenable to both primary and secondary prevention through screening colonoscopy. Despite the conceptual simplicity of recommending colonoscopy, barriers exist to universal (or even widespread) screening. Currently the infrastructure necessary to achieve screening goals set by the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has not been established. At current rates of training gastroenterologists, the medical community will not be able to come close to achieving widespread screening. Given the discrepancy between the public health benefit of achieving the goals and the deaths that have occurred because of the resource shortfall, we propose alternative measures to screen the at-risk population for consideration. This need is most acute in the black community, in which where screening rates tend to be lower and polyps have been found to progress more quickly than among white populations. In South Carolina, one model has used primary care physicians as the labor force to provide routine screening colonoscopy for their own patients. This model makes screening much more accessible to minority patients, as the wait is shorter and the cost typically lower. In combination with a faith-based partnership with minority religious organizations, this model has begun to make needed inroads toward addressing the disparities associated with colon cancer. Cancer 2007. (c) 2006 American Cancer Society.

Colonic Neoplasms↗

PubMed2007

Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence. Part 2: long-term outcome.

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed recent literature to assess the impact of hospital caseload, surgeon's caseload and education on long-term outcome following colorectal cancer surgery. METHOD: We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature starting from 1992. We selected hospital caseload, surgeon's caseload and surgeon's education, type of hospital, and surgeon's experience as variables of interest. Measures of outcome were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, and for rectal cancer frequency of permanent stoma. We reviewed the 34 studies according to tumour location: colonic cancer, rectal cancer, or colorectal cancer. We described the studies individually and performed a meta-analysis whenever it was considered appropriate. RESULTS: For colonic cancer, overall survival improved with increasing hospital caseload, odds ratio (OR) 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.28], and surgeon's education. For rectal cancer, overall survival improved with increasing hospital caseload, OR 1.38 (95% CI 1.19-1.60), and, possibly by surgeon' education and experience. Cancer-free survival was strongly influenced by surgeon's education. The colostomy rate was less in high caseload hospitals, OR 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.85). For colorectal cancer, overall survival improved with surgeon's education. CONCLUSION: The data have provided evidence that long-term survival following colorectal cancer surgery in general improved significantly with increasing hospital caseload and surgeon's education.

Colonic Neoplasms↗

PubMed2007

Management of duodenal involvement in locally advanced colonic carcinoma.

Removal of locally advanced right-sided colonic carcinoma involving the duodenum can be challenging. There are few data on the optimal surgical approach. Adjacent organ involvement is associated with a poor prognosis and may be classified as inoperable with patients having palliative bypass procedures rather than primary resection. Survival is however improved after en bloc resection of adjoining viscera compared with intestinal bypass. We present a variety of surgical options depending on the extent of local invasion and the debility of the patient.

Colonic Neoplasms↗