Interdisciplinary cooperation in colorectal cancer screening
The waiting time for colonoscopy

Czech version

Authors: N. Král; B. Seifert
Authors‘ workplace: Ústav všeobecného lékařství, 1. LF UK v Praze
Published in: Gastroent Hepatol 2016; 70(5): 393-397
Category: Gastrointestinal Oncology: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amgh2016csgh.info10

Overview

General practitioners and gastroenterologists have gained a lot of experience in colorectal cancer screening in the Czech Republic over the last 15 years. However, interdisciplinary collaboration in the literature has not yet been given the attention it deserves, either locally or internationally. This article focuses on the various aspects of collaboration between general practitioners and gastroenterologists, with an emphasis on the limited capacity of colonoscopic centers in newly-established population screening with central invitation.

Method:
The aim of the study was to explore waiting times for colonoscopy at centers accredited for colonoscopy screening between regions, and between outpatient clinics and hospital centers. The study was conducted in April 2015 and the data were collected from a telephone survey.

Results:
We collected data from 166 centers. The average waiting time at all the surveyed screening centers was 64 days. The average waiting time was longer (70.8 days) in Bohemia than in Moravia (53 days). Other differences (hospital vs. out-patient clinic, and regional differences) were not statistically significant.

Conclusion:
The length of the waiting time complicates interdisciplinary collaboration and endangers the optimal functioning of colorectal cancer screening in the Czech Republic. The situation requires technical (increase in cut-off) and organizational (increase in the capacity of colonoscopic centers) measures.

Key words:
screening – general practitioner – colonoscopy – colorectal cancer – central invitation

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE „uniform requirements“ for biomedical papers.

Submitted:
21. 1. 2016

Accepted:
5. 5. 2016

Sources

1. Seifert B, Zavoral M, Fric P et al. The role of primary care in colorectal cancer screening: experience from Czech Republic. Neoplasma 2008; 55 (1): 74–80.

2. Zavoral M, Suchanek S, Zavada F et al. Colorectal cancer screening in Europe. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15 (47): 5907–5915.

3. Král N, Seifert B, Suchánek Š et al. Přístup populace ke screeningu kolorektálního karcinomu v České republice. Epidemiol Mikrobiol Imunol 2015; 64 (1): 41–46.

4. Májek O, Danes J, Zavoral M et al. Czech national cancer screening programmes in 2010. Klin Onkol 2010; 23 (5): 343–353.

5. Král N, Seifert B, Dušek L et al. Změny ve screeningu kolorektálního karcinomu – krok správným směrem? Onkologie 2010; 4 (4): 251–255.

6. Majek O, Danes J, Skovajsova M et al. Breast cancer screening in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators during the first seven years of the organised programme. BMC Public Health 2011; 11 (1): 288. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11- 288.

7. Viguier J, Calazel-Benque A, Eisinger F et al. Organized colorectal cancer screening programmes: how to optimize efficiency among general practitioners. Eur J Cancer Prev 2011; 20 (Suppl 1): 26–32. doi: 10.1097/01.cej.0000391567.490 06.af.

8. Denters M, Deutekom M, Fockens P et al. Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by repeated fecal occult blood test in the Netherlands. BMC Gastroenterol 2009; 9 (1): 28. doi: 10.1186/ 1471-230X-9-28.

9. Lo SH, Halloran S, Snowball J et al. Colorectal cancer screening uptake over three biennial invitation rounds in the English bowel cancer screening programme. Gut 2015; 64 (2): 282–291. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306144.

10. Steel RJ, Kostorou I, McClements P et al. Effect of repeated invitations on uptake of colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: analysis of prevalence and incidence screening. BMJ 2010; 341: c5531. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5531.

11. Zajac IT, Whibley AH, Cole SR et al. Endorsement by the primary care practitioner consistently impoves particitation in screening for colorectal cancer: a longitudinal analysis. J Med Screen 2010; 17 (1): 19–24. doi: 10.1258/jms.2010.009 101.

12. Senore C, Armaroli P, Silvani M et al. Comparing different strategies for colorectal cancer screening in Italy: predictors of patient’s participation. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105 (1): 188–198. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.583.

13. van Roon AH, Hol L, Wilschut JA et al. Advance notification letters increase adherence in colorectal vcancer screening: a population-based randomized trial. Prev Med 2011; 52 (6): 448–451. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.032.

14. Giorgi Rossi P, Grazzini G, Anti M et al. Direct mailing of feacal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized population study from Central Italy. J Med Screen 2011; 18 (3): 121–127. doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.011009.

15. Zorzi M, De Ra F, Mantellini P et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in Italy: 2011–2012 survey. Epidemiolo Prev 2015; 39 (3 Suppl 1): 93–107.

16. Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karssa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. 1st ed. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2010.

17. Binefa G, García M, Milà N. Colonoscopy quality assessment in a mass population screening programme based on faecal occult blood test. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2013; 105 (7): 400–408.

18. Chauvin P, Josselin JM, Heresbach D. The influence of waiting times on cost- effectiveness: a case study of colorectal cancer mass screening. Eur J Health Econ 2014; 15 (8): 801–812. doi: 10.1007/ s10198-013-0525-9.

19. Bobridge A, Cole S, Schoeman M et al. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program – consequences for practice. Aust Fam Physician 2013; 42 (3): 141–145.

20. Berchi C, Guittet L, Bouvier V et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the optimal threshold of an automated immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening: performances of immunochemical colorectal cancer screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26 (1): 48–53. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309990808.

21. Kuipers EJ, Rösch T, Bretthauer M et al. Colorectal cancer screening-optimizing current strategies and new directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013; 10 (3): 130–142. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.12.

22. Terhaar sive Droste JS, Oort FA, van der Hulst RW et al. Higher fecal immunochemical test cutoff levels: lower positivity rates but still acceptable detection rates for early-stage colorectal cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 20 (2): 272–280. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0848.

23. Zavoral M, Vojtěchová G, Májek O et al. Populační screening kolorektálního karcinomu v České republice. Cas Lek Ces 2016; 155 (1): 7–12.

24. Denters M, Deutekom M, Bossuyt P et al. Patient burden of colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2013; 45 (5): 342–349. doi: 10.1055/ s-0032-1326238.