Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer: Evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals

J. H. Haseman, G. T. Lemmel, E. Y. Rahmani, Douglas Rex

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

150 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of colon polyps and cancers, but failed detections can occur and the reasons are incompletely understood. Methods: During a retrospective evaluation of the sensitivity of barium enema and colonoscopy in 20 Indiana Hospitals, we encountered 47 cases of colorectal cancer in which a colonoscopy performed within 3 years of the diagnosis had not detected the cancer. Cases were reviewed for location of tumor, extenuating factors, pathologic features, delay in diagnosis from failed detection, and who performed the examination. Results: Failed detection was more likely when colonoscopy was performed by a nongastroenterologist than a gastroenterologist (odds ratio 5:36, 95% Cl [2.94,9.77]). Twenty-seven cancers were 'missed,' and 20 were estimated to be not reached. However, the location of missed tumors and a general absence of adequate documentation of cecal intubation suggested that some cecal and ascending colon cancers recorded as missed may actually have been not reached. Variation in sensitivity among gastroenterologists suggested that meticulous examination is also important in maximizing sensitivity. Conclusions: These cases suggest several factors that might improve the quality and sensitivity of colonoscopy: (1) examiners should receive adequate training, (2) cecal intubation rates should be high, (3) cecal intubation should be verified by specific landmarks in all cases, (4) failure to reach the cecum should be followed by prompt barium enema, and (5) meticulous examination would appear to improve sensitivity for cancer detection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)451-455
Number of pages5
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume45
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Colonoscopy
Colorectal Neoplasms
Intubation
Neoplasms
Colonic Neoplasms
Ascending Colon
Cecum
Polyps
Documentation
Odds Ratio
Barium Enema
Gastroenterologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer : Evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals. / Haseman, J. H.; Lemmel, G. T.; Rahmani, E. Y.; Rex, Douglas.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 45, No. 6, 1997, p. 451-455.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Haseman, J. H. ; Lemmel, G. T. ; Rahmani, E. Y. ; Rex, Douglas. / Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer : Evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1997 ; Vol. 45, No. 6. pp. 451-455.
@article{51b339805210400cbab8fd4520197524,
title = "Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer: Evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals",
abstract = "Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of colon polyps and cancers, but failed detections can occur and the reasons are incompletely understood. Methods: During a retrospective evaluation of the sensitivity of barium enema and colonoscopy in 20 Indiana Hospitals, we encountered 47 cases of colorectal cancer in which a colonoscopy performed within 3 years of the diagnosis had not detected the cancer. Cases were reviewed for location of tumor, extenuating factors, pathologic features, delay in diagnosis from failed detection, and who performed the examination. Results: Failed detection was more likely when colonoscopy was performed by a nongastroenterologist than a gastroenterologist (odds ratio 5:36, 95{\%} Cl [2.94,9.77]). Twenty-seven cancers were 'missed,' and 20 were estimated to be not reached. However, the location of missed tumors and a general absence of adequate documentation of cecal intubation suggested that some cecal and ascending colon cancers recorded as missed may actually have been not reached. Variation in sensitivity among gastroenterologists suggested that meticulous examination is also important in maximizing sensitivity. Conclusions: These cases suggest several factors that might improve the quality and sensitivity of colonoscopy: (1) examiners should receive adequate training, (2) cecal intubation rates should be high, (3) cecal intubation should be verified by specific landmarks in all cases, (4) failure to reach the cecum should be followed by prompt barium enema, and (5) meticulous examination would appear to improve sensitivity for cancer detection.",
author = "Haseman, {J. H.} and Lemmel, {G. T.} and Rahmani, {E. Y.} and Douglas Rex",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1016/S0016-5107(97)70172-X",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "451--455",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer

T2 - Evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals

AU - Haseman, J. H.

AU - Lemmel, G. T.

AU - Rahmani, E. Y.

AU - Rex, Douglas

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of colon polyps and cancers, but failed detections can occur and the reasons are incompletely understood. Methods: During a retrospective evaluation of the sensitivity of barium enema and colonoscopy in 20 Indiana Hospitals, we encountered 47 cases of colorectal cancer in which a colonoscopy performed within 3 years of the diagnosis had not detected the cancer. Cases were reviewed for location of tumor, extenuating factors, pathologic features, delay in diagnosis from failed detection, and who performed the examination. Results: Failed detection was more likely when colonoscopy was performed by a nongastroenterologist than a gastroenterologist (odds ratio 5:36, 95% Cl [2.94,9.77]). Twenty-seven cancers were 'missed,' and 20 were estimated to be not reached. However, the location of missed tumors and a general absence of adequate documentation of cecal intubation suggested that some cecal and ascending colon cancers recorded as missed may actually have been not reached. Variation in sensitivity among gastroenterologists suggested that meticulous examination is also important in maximizing sensitivity. Conclusions: These cases suggest several factors that might improve the quality and sensitivity of colonoscopy: (1) examiners should receive adequate training, (2) cecal intubation rates should be high, (3) cecal intubation should be verified by specific landmarks in all cases, (4) failure to reach the cecum should be followed by prompt barium enema, and (5) meticulous examination would appear to improve sensitivity for cancer detection.

AB - Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of colon polyps and cancers, but failed detections can occur and the reasons are incompletely understood. Methods: During a retrospective evaluation of the sensitivity of barium enema and colonoscopy in 20 Indiana Hospitals, we encountered 47 cases of colorectal cancer in which a colonoscopy performed within 3 years of the diagnosis had not detected the cancer. Cases were reviewed for location of tumor, extenuating factors, pathologic features, delay in diagnosis from failed detection, and who performed the examination. Results: Failed detection was more likely when colonoscopy was performed by a nongastroenterologist than a gastroenterologist (odds ratio 5:36, 95% Cl [2.94,9.77]). Twenty-seven cancers were 'missed,' and 20 were estimated to be not reached. However, the location of missed tumors and a general absence of adequate documentation of cecal intubation suggested that some cecal and ascending colon cancers recorded as missed may actually have been not reached. Variation in sensitivity among gastroenterologists suggested that meticulous examination is also important in maximizing sensitivity. Conclusions: These cases suggest several factors that might improve the quality and sensitivity of colonoscopy: (1) examiners should receive adequate training, (2) cecal intubation rates should be high, (3) cecal intubation should be verified by specific landmarks in all cases, (4) failure to reach the cecum should be followed by prompt barium enema, and (5) meticulous examination would appear to improve sensitivity for cancer detection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030866863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030866863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0016-5107(97)70172-X

DO - 10.1016/S0016-5107(97)70172-X

M3 - Article

C2 - 9199899

AN - SCOPUS:0030866863

VL - 45

SP - 451

EP - 455

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 6

ER -