Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Dong Jun Kim; Nan-He Yoon; Jae Kwan Jun; Mina Suh; Sunhwa Lee; Seongju Kim; Ji Eun Kim; Hooyeon Lee

doi:10.4143/crt.2024.009

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 56(4); 2024 > Article

Original Article Gastrointestinal cancer Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea: Dong Jun Kim^1,2, Nan-He Yoon³, Jae Kwan Jun^4,5, Mina Suh^4,5, Sunhwa Lee⁴, Seongju Kim^1,6, Ji Eun Kim⁷, Hooyeon Lee^1,2,6,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2024;56(4):1164-1170.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.009
Published online: April 16, 2024

¹Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Public Health, Graduate School, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

³Division of Social Welfare and Health Administration, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Korea

⁴National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

⁵Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

⁶Department of Public Health and Healthcare Management, Graduate School, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

⁷Department of Medical Science, Soonchunhyang University Graduate School, Asan, Korea

Correspondence: Hooyeon Lee, Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea
Tel: 82-2-2228-7386 Fax: 82-2-532-3820 E-mail: hylee@catholic.ac.kr

• Received: January 3, 2024 • Accepted: April 15, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

2,012 Views
100 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref
2 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
The rate of interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) is now accepted as a key performance indicator of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. We aimed to examine the association between endoscopist volumes and the rate of iCRC among individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within a nationwide population-based CRC screening program.
Materials and Methods
Individuals aged ≥ 50 years who underwent colonoscopy after a positive FIT from January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2020 in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) were enrolled. We converted the data into per-endoscopist screening results, calculated the iCRC rates per endoscopist, and compared them to the previous year’s annual volume that was divided into five groups (V1, 1-9; V2, 10-29; V3, 30-59; V4, 60-119; V5, ≥ 120).
Results
A total of 10,412 endoscopists performed 216,907 colonoscopies. Overall, the average rate of iCRC per endoscopist was 8.46 per 1,000 examinations. Compared with the group with the highest volume (V5 group), the rate of iCRC was 2.21 times higher in the V1 group. Similar trends were observed in the other groups (V2: relative risks [RR], 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57 to 2.94; V3: RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.13; V4: RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.67).
Conclusion
The findings emphasize that endoscopists with lower procedure volumes have higher risks of interval cancer being missed or undetected. To maximize the preventative impact of colonoscopy for CRC, this issue should be addressed by monitoring endoscopist volumes and variations in performances.
Key words: Colorectal neoplasms, Cancer screening, Quality management, Colonoscopy, Endoscopist volume, Interval cancers

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide and its incidence has increased rapidly in many Asian countries [1,2]. CRC is also a major public health concern in Korea. In 2018, it was the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer, the third most prevalent cancer, and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths [3].

Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for CRC screening based on its ability to visualize the complete colon as well as directly remove neoplastic lesions. Accordingly, colonoscopy is widely used for primary CRC screening in several countries, including the United States, Canada, Germany, and Poland [4]. In 2004, CRC screening programs were introduced as part of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) [5]. Therein, all Korean males and females over 50 years of age are invited to undergo annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Individuals with a positive FIT result can subsequently undergo further investigation by colonoscopy or double contrast barium enema [5].

Although colonoscopy is widely considered a safe procedure for CRC, its effectiveness, especially in the proximal colon, seems to be limited [6]. Substantial incidence rates of interval CRCs (iCRCs) are observed following colonoscopy [7,8]. As iCRC has a deleterious impact on screening outcomes, the rate of iCRC is now accepted as a key performance indicator of organized CRC screening programs [7-9]. Although previous studies have reported the epidemiology, risk factors, and possible etiologies of iCRC, several key questions remain unsolved. Among these, there is limited data available concerning iCRCs that develop subsequent to diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive primary screening test.

Procedural volume is often regarded as a proxy for proficiency in medical and surgical fields [10]. Higher annual colonoscopy volumes are associated with a lower rate of colonic perforation. Moreover, there is a trend towards decreased overall potential adverse events with higher procedural volumes [11]. The procedural volumes of endoscopists are linked to the occurrence of iCRC following a negative colonoscopy, as evidenced by large population-based studies [10].

Therefore, we aimed to investigate the rate of iCRC as a quality metric subsequent to a negative follow-up colonoscopy following a positive FIT within a nationwide population-based CRC screening program. Further, we examined whether endoscopists with higher annual colonoscopy volumes have lower incidence of iCRC.

Materials and Methods

1. Study population and endoscopist volume

The study population comprised individuals aged 50 years and older who received colonoscopies after positive FITs from January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2020 in the KNCSP. The KNCSP database contains information on participant’ sex, age, insurance type, income, screening methods, and results. In addition, information on colonoscopy examinations include the endoscopist’s ID. During this period, a total of 240,170 individuals received colonoscopies. We excluded colonoscopy examinations performed by endoscopists who had not conducted a colonoscopy in the previous year. Finally, a total of 216,907 individuals were included in the study population (Fig. 1).

For each endoscopist, the annual colonoscopy volume was calculated as the total number of colonoscopy procedures in each year of the study. An endoscopist’s volume was allowed to vary from year to year, based on their actual procedural counts. The endoscopists were then categorized into different volume groups, with high-volume category serving as the reference. The annual endoscopist volume was divided into five groups (V1, 1-9; V2, 10-29; V3, 30-59; V4, 60-119; V5, ≥ 120). Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic causing a decrease in CRC screening in 2020 compared to 2019 [12], endoscopist volume groups were defined based on the number of procedures instead of percentiles, indicating the relative standing from the lowest to the highest values. The screening results in 2019 and 2020 were linked to the endoscopists’ annual volumes in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

2. Definition of iCRC

There is no universally accepted definition of iCRC. In colonoscopy studies, a cancer is classified as an interval cancer if it develops within a defined time frame after a screening colonoscopy (e.g., 3, 5, or 10 years), depending on the study [7,8]. iCRC is generally defined as CRC that was diagnosed between the time of a screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of CRC screening [13,14]. In this study, the iCRC was calculated as the number of interval cancers diagnosed within one year (equal to the national CRC screening interval in Korea) divided by the number of negative test results [5,15].

Within the KNCSP for CRC, the results were judged as one of the following pre-defined statuses: “normal”, “colon polyp”, “suspected CRC”, “CRC”, or “other diagnoses”. We defined a negative colonoscopy as “normal”, “colon polyp”, or “other diagnoses” [16]. Following a negative colonoscopy, CRC was identified based on the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision codes C18-20 within one year after screening [15], based on the co-payment reduction program data. The Korean government implemented the co-payment reduction program to control catastrophic medical costs and the occurrence of unmet needs due to high health expenditure for all inpatient and outpatient services for those diagnosed with cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart disease, rare diseases, severe incurable diseases, and severe burns [17]. Thus, individuals diagnosed with a new cancer in Korea can benefit from reduced out-of-pocket payments for medical services through the National Health Insurance program.

3. Statistical analysis

First, we described the sociodemographic characteristics of the individuals who underwent colonoscopies and had negative colonoscopy results. Second, the number of endoscopists and colonoscopy examinations according to the previous year’s annual volume, the screening year, and the type of medical institution were calculated. In addition, the average rate of iCRC per endoscopist was calculated for each variable and assessed using ANOVA or t tests. The incidence of iCRC was calculated as the proportion of iCRC cases among all negative colonoscopies performed by each endoscopist. The rate of iCRC was expressed as the number of cancers per 1,000 colonoscopy examinations. Third, a robust Poisson regression model was used to confirm the association between the rate of iCRC and endoscopist volumes, adjusted by the type of medical institution and screening year. Robust Poisson models are less susceptible to the influence of outliers when estimating the relative risks (RR) [18]. Finally, subgroup analysis was conducted to further elucidate the association between iCRC rates and endoscopist volumes, according to the type of medical institution and the screening year. We also conducted the sensitive analysis by defining quintiles of endoscopists’ procedural volumes. The RR and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS ver. 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants who underwent colonoscopy

Among the 216,907 participants who underwent colonoscopy examinations, a total of 207,480 (95.7%) had negative colonoscopy results (Table 1). Men accounted for 52.5% of the participants, of whom 94.7% had negative test results. In comparison, 96.7% of the women had negative colonoscopy results. Participants aged 70 years or older accounted for 26.9% of the study population, of whom, 93.9% had negative results.

2. Rate of iCRC by endoscopist volume, type of medical institution, and screening year

A total of 10,412 endoscopists performed 216,907 colonoscopies from January 1, 2019, until December 31, 2020, in the KNCSP (Table 2). Endoscopists in the V1 group performed < 10 examinations (46.1% of endoscopists), accounting for 18.6% of the total colonoscopy examinations. Conversely, the V5 group, who performed 120 or more colonoscopies (2.2% of endoscopists), represented 14.8% of the examinations. Among all the endoscopists, 39.5% performed colonoscopy examinations at hospitals, representing 43.5% of the total examinations.

Overall, the average rate of iCRC per endoscopist was 8.46 per 1,000 examinations. The rate of iCRC was 9.24 per 1,000 examinations in the low-volume V1 group, and 9.00‰, 6.56‰, 5.00‰, and 4.27‰ in the V2, V3, V4, and high-volume V5 groups, respectively. We also calculated the iCRC rate for each endoscopist based on the endoscopist’s procedure volume as well as the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants who received colonoscopies from that specific endoscopist (S1 Table).

3. Risk of iCRC according to endoscopist’s procedure volume

Compared to the group of endoscopists with the highest procedure volume (V5 group), the iCRC rate was 2.21 times higher in the V1 group. Similar trends were observed in the other groups (V2: RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.57 to 2.94; V3: RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.13; V4: RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.67) (Table 3). The association between the type of medical institution, the screening year, and the risk of iCRC was not statistically significant.

Upon comparing iCRC rates by endoscopist volume, while considering the type of medical institution (Fig. 2), we confirmed the association between iCRC rates and endoscopist volume. In hospitals, the risk of iCRC was 2.15 times higher in the V1 group compared to that in the V5 group. In clinics, the risk in the V1 group increased by 3.91 times compared to that in the V5 group. In 2020, the risk of iCRC in the V1 group increased by 2.04 times compared to that in the V5 group. Finally, in 2019, this risk in the V1 group increased by 2.42 times compared to that in the V5 group.

The results of the subgroup analysis, considering participant’s sociodemographic characteristics, demonstrated an association between iCRC rates and endoscopist volumes (S2 Fig.).

In our sensitive analysis, we also categorized endoscopists into quintiles based procedure volume. The results obtained from both quintile and absolute classification were similar, as shown in S3 and S4 Tables.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates some important findings regarding the association between colonoscopy procedural volumes and the rate of iCRC, which serve as key quality indicators for colonoscopy effectiveness. Across all endoscopists in the study, the mean iCRC rate per endoscopist was 8.46 per 1,000 examinations. The mean rate of iCRC was higher in males than in females and in older adults than in younger adults [19,20]. We found a substantial variation in the rate of iCRC across endoscopists. Endoscopists with the highest procedural volumes had the lowest rates of interval cancers following colonoscopy, while lower-volume endoscopists exhibited higher iCRC rates.

When patients underwent colonoscopy between 6 months and 36 months before CRC was diagnosed, they were considered to have a new or missed cancer, with the rate ranging from 0.4% to 7.9% [21]. U.S. population–based analysis to include validation of cancer diagnoses through registry data, we documented an interval cancer frequency of 7.2% [22]. Recent studies reported an increase of up to 8% in the prevalence of interval cancers [22,23].

In Korea, the prevalence of interval cancer was reported to be 6.2% [24]; however, this figure was based on data obtained by telephone calls from a single tertiary-referral center. Another Korean study reported that the prevalence rate of iCRC was 7.9% among all diagnosed cases of CRC, specifically focusing on early iCRC occurrences within 6-36 months after index colonoscopy [16]. Modifying the time cutoff to include iCRC affects the overall proportion [11,13,25]. For our study, we defined colonoscopy iCRCs as those occurring within 1 year (i.e., a complete FIT screening cycle) after index colonoscopy and before the date of the next recommended examination [8,14]. In our study, the mean rate of iCRC was calculated per endoscopist, and unit of analysis was the endoscopist. Therefore, the rates of interval cancer need to be compared with caution.

Although the exact etiology of interval cancer remains unknown, factors implicated in the development of interval cancers include missed lesions at the time of colonoscopy, incomplete resection of previous neoplastic lesions, distinct tumor biology, and the serrated pathway of carcinogenesis. However, recent evidence suggests that the occurrence of interval cancers is related to the training of the endoscopist and quality of the colonoscopy rather than to the tumor biology [24].

Our findings suggest that endoscopists procedural volumes were likely to play an important role in optimizing performance. Decreasing the volume of surgical procedures requiring advanced technical skills can result in poorer results both on an institutional and individual basis [11,26,27]. Various studies have convincingly shown that the risk of post-endoscopy cancer depends on the experience of the endoscopist [4]. Low-volume facilities may not have management supervision [28]. Colonoscopies performed by low-volume endoscopists have been reported to be associated with an increased risk of bleeding, perforation, and cecal intubation rates [11].

As a result, several national and regional gastroenterology guideline committees have recommended minimum annual colonoscopy volume benchmarks [29-31]. Although some data have suggested that low-volume endoscopists have higher rates of colonoscopy-related adverse events [23], it remains unclear whether this association also exists for interval cancer. Although our analysis could not establish a specific lower threshold, the present study suggests that very low-volume endoscopists may be most at risk.

A strong emphasis has been placed on the importance of organized population screening with constant monitoring of colonoscopy performance [4]. In 2008, the Ministry of Health and Welfare launched the National Screening Quality Assessment Program in the KNCSP. This external evaluation assesses colonoscopy accuracy indicators every 3 years, such as sensitivity, specificity, adenoma detection rate, and interval cancer. However, it does not provide feedback. In addition, institutions with fewer than 50 screening cases are excluded from the evaluation of accuracy indicators due to challenges in generating statistically reliable indicators when considering the incidence of colon cancer among a small number of colonoscopies.

However, regular audits and feedback should be considered to improve the overall quality and decrease quality variations at the national level, regardless of the number of examinations performed [13,32]. In addition, it should be considered that high-volume endoscopists may need to decrease their per-procedure time because of denser endoscopy schedules, which could potentially compromise quality.

Our study had some limitations. First, endoscopist characteristics are related to achieving appropriate levels of colonoscopy competence. However, we did not consider these variables due to a lack of data availability. Second, defining colonoscopy performance is difficult, and case volume is not the only factor involved [33]. The performance of colonoscopy is associated with various factors, such as the endoscope system (e.g., high-magnification scopes), bowel preparation quality, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and endoscopy room quality. Third, we need to comprehensively investigate other performance indicators such as the positivity rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and false-positive rate in future studies. Fourth, follow-up colonoscopy should ideally be performed for all screened participants to evaluate the incidence of iCRC. However, 64.4% of the eligible population participated in the 2020 Korean CRC screening program [3]. Fifth, our study does not reflect colonoscopy in opportunistic cancer screening. Finally, a positive FIT prior to a negative colonoscopy could indicate that a neoplasm had already been present but remained undetected during the colonoscopy [8].

Despite these limitations, this research has several important implications for clinical practice and policy. First, we demonstrated an association between endoscopist volume and interval cancers from a nationwide population-based CRC screening program. Second, the findings emphasize that low-volume endoscopists have higher risks of interval cancer. If the impact of colonoscopy on cancer prevention is to be maximized, this issue should be addressed by monitoring endoscopist volume and variations in performance. Quality metrics should be targeted for all providers, regardless of minimum requirements for endoscopist volume.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2024-009_S1_Table.pdf

crt-2024-009_S2_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-009_S3_Table.pdf

crt-2024-009_S4_Table.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea (IRB approval number: MC21EESE0126) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Due to the study’s retrospective nature, informed consent was not required.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Kim DJ, Yoon NH, Jun JK, Suh M, Lee H.

Collected the data: Kim DJ, Lee S, Kim S, Lee H.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Kim DJ, Jun JK, Suh M, Kim S, Kim JE, Lee H.

Performed the analysis: Kim DJ, Lee S, Kim JE, Lee H.

Wrote the paper: Kim DJ, Yoon NH, Lee H

Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center (NCC) funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HA21C0225).

Fig. 1.

Flow diagram of participant recruitment from the nationwide screening program. CRC, colorectal cancer; iCRC, interval colorectal cancer; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; KNCSP, Korean National Cancer Screening Program.

Fig. 2.

Risk of interval colorectal cancer by endoscopist volume according to the type of screening facility and screening year (ref=V5). Relative risk adjusted for the type of medical institution and the screening year considered in the study.

Table 1.

Findings at the screening colonoscopy according to the sociodemographic characteristics of participants from 2019-2020

Sociodemographic characteristic	Colonoscopy examinations	Negative colonoscopy results
Total	216,907 (100)	207,480 (95.7)
Sex
Male	113,939 (52.5)	107,942 (94.7)
Female	102,968 (47.5)	99,538 (96.7)
Age group (yr)
50-59	74,106 (34.2)	71,735 (96.8)
60-69	84,437 (38.9)	80,920 (95.8)
≥ 70	58,364 (26.9)	54,825 (93.9)
Types of insurance coverage
NHI, self-employed	68,786 (31.7)	65,678 (95.5)
NHI, employee	148,121 (68.3)	141,802 (95.7)
Income
Q1 (lower)	53,687 (24.8)	51,125 (95.2)
Q2	54,756 (25.2)	52,436 (95.8)
Q3	54,216 (25.0)	51,877 (95.7)
Q4 (higher)	54,248 (25.0)	52,042 (95.9)

Values are presented as number (%). NHI, National Health Insurance.

Table 2.

iCRC rates per 1,000 colonoscopy examinations by endoscopist volume, medical institution type, and screening year

Variable	No. (%)		iCRC rate per endoscopist (‰), mean±SD	p-value
Variable	Colonoscopy examinations	Endoscopists	iCRC rate per endoscopist (‰), mean±SD	p-value
Total	216,907 (100)	10,412 (100)	8.46±44.53
Endoscopist volume
V5 (120-852)	32,073 (14.8)	231 (2.2)	4.27±8.90	0.038
V4 (60-119)	38,322 (17.7)	608 (5.8)	5.00±13.43
V3 (30-59)	46,580 (21.5)	1,330 (12.8)	6.56±17.29
V2 (10-29)	59,616 (27.5)	3,440 (33.0)	9.01±41.30
V1 (1-9)	40,316 (18.6)	4,803 (46.1)	9.24±54.44
Medical institution
Hospitals	94,421 (43.5)	4,110 (39.5)	8.86±43.91	0.324
Clinics	122,486 (56.5)	6,302 (60.5)	8.20±44.93
Screening year
2020	105,240 (48.5)	5,338 (51.3)	8.57±45.67	0.806
2019	111,667 (51.5)	5,074 (48.7)	8.35±43.30

iCRC, interval colorectal cancer; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3.

Association between interval colorectal cancer rates and endoscopist’s volume using the Robust Poisson regression analysis

Variable	RR	95% CI
Endoscopists volume
V5 (120-852)	1.00
V4 (60-119)	1.18	0.83-1.67
V3 (30-59)	1.56	1.15-2.13
V2 (10-29)	2.15	1.57-2.94
V1 (1-9)	2.21	1.61-3.04
Medical institution
Hospitals	1.00
Clinics	0.97	0.80-1.19
Screening year
2020	1.00
2019	1.11	0.90-1.36

CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk.

REFERENCES

1. Onyoh EF, Hsu WF, Chang LC, Lee YC, Wu MS, Chiu HM. The rise of colorectal cancer in Asia: epidemiology, screening, and management. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2019;21:36.Article PubMed PDF
2. Sung JJ, Lau JY, Goh KL, Leung WK; Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer. Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in Asia: implications for screening. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:871–6. Article PubMed
3. Park B, Lee YY, Song SY, Shin HY, Suh M, Choi KS, et al. Trends of colorectal cancer screening rates in Korea: Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2005-2020. Gut Liver. 2022;16:930–41. Article PubMed PMC
4. Kuipers EJ, Rosch T, Bretthauer M. Colorectal cancer screening: optimizing current strategies and new directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;10:130–42. Article PubMed PDF
5. Shin A, Choi KS, Jun JK, Noh DK, Suh M, Jung KW, et al. Validity of fecal occult blood test in the national cancer screening program, Korea. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79292Article PubMed PMC
6. Sanduleanu S, Masclee AM, Meijer GA. Interval cancers after colonoscopy-insights and recommendations. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;9:550–4. Article PubMed PDF
7. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803. Article PubMed
8. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, Hoffmeister M. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. Gut. 2012;61:1576–82. Article PubMed
9. Hassan C, Rex DK, Zullo A, Cooper GS. Loss of efficacy and cost-effectiveness when screening colonoscopy is performed by nongastroenterologists. Cancer. 2012;118:4404–11. Article PubMed
10. Mehta A, Efron DT, Canner JK, Dultz L, Xu T, Jones C, et al. Effect of surgeon and hospital volume on emergency general surgery outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225:666–75. Article PubMed
11. Forbes N, Boyne DJ, Mazurek MS, Hilsden RJ, Sutherland RL, Pader J, et al. Association between endoscopist annual procedure Volume and colonoscopy quality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:2192–208. Article PubMed
12. Lee K, Lee YY, Suh M, Jun JK, Park B, Kim Y, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on cancer screening in South Korea. Sci Rep. 2022;12:11380.Article PubMed PMC PDF
13. Sanduleanu S, le Clercq CM, Dekker E, Meijer GA, Rabeneck L, Rutter MD, et al. Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature. Gut. 2015;64:1257–67. Article PubMed
14. Ertem FU, Ladabaum U, Mehrotra A, Tehranian S, Shi Z, Saul M, et al. Incidence of interval colorectal cancer attributable to an endoscopist in clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:705–11. Article PubMed PMC
15. Park B, Her EY, Lee K, Nari F, Jun JK, Choi KS, et al. Overview of the national cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea over 14 years (2004-2017). Cancer Res Treat. 2023;55:910–7. Article PubMed PMC PDF
16. Lee CK, Choi KS, Eun CS, Park DI, Han DS, Yoon M, et al. Risk and characteristics of postcolonoscopy interval colorectal cancer after a positive fecal test: a nationwide populationbased study in Korea. Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50:50–9. Article PubMed PDF
17. Shin DW, Cho J, Park JH, Cho B. National general health screening program in Korea: history, current status, and future direction: a scoping review. Precis Future Med. 2022;6:9–31. Article PDF
18. Chen W, Shi J, Qian L, Azen SP. Comparison of robustness to outliers between robust poisson models and log-binomial models when estimating relative risks for common binary outcomes: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:82.Article PubMed PMC PDF
19. Wisse PH, Erler NS, de Boer SY, den Hartog B, Oudkerk Pool M, Terhaar Sive Droste JS, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk for interval postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer in fecal immunochemical test-based screening: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:1366–73. Article PubMed
20. Chiu SY, Chuang SL, Chen SL, Yen AM, Fann JC, Chang DC, et al. Faecal haemoglobin concentration influences risk prediction of interval cancers resulting from inadequate colonoscopy quality: analysis of the Taiwanese Nationwide Colorectal Cancer Screening Program. Gut. 2017;66:293–300. Article PubMed
21. Gotfried J, Bernstein M, Ehrlich AC, Friedenberg FK. Administrative database research overestimates the rate of interval colon cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49:483–90. Article PubMed PMC
22. Cooper GS, Xu F, Barnholtz Sloan JS, Schluchter MD, Koroukian SM. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in medicare beneficiaries. Cancer. 2012;118:3044–52. Article PubMed
23. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Bernstein CN. Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2588–96. Article PubMed PDF
24. Cha JM. Colonoscopy quality is the answer for the emerging issue of interval cancer. Intest Res. 2014;12:110–6. Article PubMed PMC
25. Adler J, Robertson DJ. Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1657–64. Article PubMed PDF
26. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2117–27. Article PubMed
27. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128–37. Article PubMed
28. Yoon JY, Cha JM, Jeen YT; Medical Policy Committee of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID); Quality Improvement Committee of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Quality is the key for emerging issues of population-based colonoscopy screening. Clin Endosc. 2018;51:50–5. Article PubMed PMC PDF
29. Tinmouth J, Kennedy EB, Baron D, Burke M, Feinberg S, Gould M, et al. Colonoscopy quality assurance in Ontario: systematic review and clinical practice guideline. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;28:251–74. Article PubMed PMC PDF
30. Valori R, Rey JF, Atkin WS, Bretthauer M, Senore C, Hoff G, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis, first edition: quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy. 2012;44 Suppl 3:SE88–105. Article PubMed
31. Min JK, Cha JM, Cho YK, Kim JH, Yoon SM, Im JP, et al. Revision of quality indicators for the endoscopy quality improvement program of the national cancer screening program in Korea. Clin Endosc. 2018;51:239–52. Article PubMed PMC PDF
32. Hilsden RJ, Rose SM, Dube C, Rostom A, Bridges R, McGregor SE, et al. Defining and applying locally relevant benchmarks for the adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:1315–21. Article PubMed
33. Jover R, Zapater P, Bujanda L, Hernandez V, Cubiella J, Pellise M, et al. Endoscopist characteristics that influence the quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2016;48:241–7. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Biennial Mammography Performance in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program From 2009 to 2020
Dong Jun Kim, Nan-He Yoon, Jae Kwan Jun, Mina Suh, Sunhwa Lee, Seongju Kim, Horim A. Hwang, Seung Eun Jung, Hooyeon Lee
Korean Journal of Radiology.2025; 26(4): 313. CrossRef
Preliminary reports of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: a nationwide performance on the Korean population in 2019–2020
Horim A. Hwang, Dong Jun Kim, Nan-He Yoon, Jae Kwan Jun, Mina Suh, Sunhwa Lee, Seongju Kim, Seung Eun Jung, Hooyeon Lee
European Radiology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Cancer Res Treat. 2024;56(4):1164-1170. Published online April 16, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.009

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of participant recruitment from the nationwide screening program. CRC, colorectal cancer; iCRC, interval colorectal cancer; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; KNCSP, Korean National Cancer Screening Program.

Fig. 2. Risk of interval colorectal cancer by endoscopist volume according to the type of screening facility and screening year (ref=V5). Relative risk adjusted for the type of medical institution and the screening year considered in the study.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Sociodemographic characteristic	Colonoscopy examinations	Negative colonoscopy results
Total	216,907 (100)	207,480 (95.7)
Sex
Male	113,939 (52.5)	107,942 (94.7)
Female	102,968 (47.5)	99,538 (96.7)
Age group (yr)
50-59	74,106 (34.2)	71,735 (96.8)
60-69	84,437 (38.9)	80,920 (95.8)
≥ 70	58,364 (26.9)	54,825 (93.9)
Types of insurance coverage
NHI, self-employed	68,786 (31.7)	65,678 (95.5)
NHI, employee	148,121 (68.3)	141,802 (95.7)
Income
Q1 (lower)	53,687 (24.8)	51,125 (95.2)
Q2	54,756 (25.2)	52,436 (95.8)
Q3	54,216 (25.0)	51,877 (95.7)
Q4 (higher)	54,248 (25.0)	52,042 (95.9)

Variable	No. (%)		iCRC rate per endoscopist (‰), mean±SD	p-value
Variable	Colonoscopy examinations	Endoscopists	iCRC rate per endoscopist (‰), mean±SD	p-value
Total	216,907 (100)	10,412 (100)	8.46±44.53
Endoscopist volume
V5 (120-852)	32,073 (14.8)	231 (2.2)	4.27±8.90	0.038
V4 (60-119)	38,322 (17.7)	608 (5.8)	5.00±13.43
V3 (30-59)	46,580 (21.5)	1,330 (12.8)	6.56±17.29
V2 (10-29)	59,616 (27.5)	3,440 (33.0)	9.01±41.30
V1 (1-9)	40,316 (18.6)	4,803 (46.1)	9.24±54.44
Medical institution
Hospitals	94,421 (43.5)	4,110 (39.5)	8.86±43.91	0.324
Clinics	122,486 (56.5)	6,302 (60.5)	8.20±44.93
Screening year
2020	105,240 (48.5)	5,338 (51.3)	8.57±45.67	0.806
2019	111,667 (51.5)	5,074 (48.7)	8.35±43.30

Variable	RR	95% CI
Endoscopists volume
V5 (120-852)	1.00
V4 (60-119)	1.18	0.83-1.67
V3 (30-59)	1.56	1.15-2.13
V2 (10-29)	2.15	1.57-2.94
V1 (1-9)	2.21	1.61-3.04
Medical institution
Hospitals	1.00
Clinics	0.97	0.80-1.19
Screening year
2020	1.00
2019	1.11	0.90-1.36

Table 1. Findings at the screening colonoscopy according to the sociodemographic characteristics of participants from 2019-2020

Values are presented as number (%). NHI, National Health Insurance.

Table 2. iCRC rates per 1,000 colonoscopy examinations by endoscopist volume, medical institution type, and screening year

iCRC, interval colorectal cancer; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3. Association between interval colorectal cancer rates and endoscopist’s volume using the Robust Poisson regression analysis

CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk.