[Évaluation de la gravité du cancer colorectal dépisté dans le contexte de la crise sanitaire liée au COVID19 en région Ile-de-France]. / Evaluation of the severity of screened colorectal cancer in the context of the health crisis linked to COVID19 in Ile-de-France region.

BACKGROUND: After the announcement in March 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs were suspended in several countries. Compared to the lesions detected during previous campaigns, this study aims to assess the severity of CRC detected during the 2020 screening campaign in Île-de-France, the French region most affected by the 1st wave of the pandemic. METHODS: The descriptive and etiological study included all faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results carried out between January 2017 and December 2020 on people aged 50-74, living in Île-de-France. First, the proportion of colonoscopies performed within one month (One-month-colo) following FIT; the yield of colonoscopy (proportion of colonoscopies with a neoplasm lesion among those performed) and CRC severity (TNM Classification, Level-0: T0/N0/M0, Level-1: T1/T2/N0/M0, Level-2: T3/T4/N0/M0; Level-3: T3/T4/N1/M0; Level-4: M1) were described in 2020 compared to previous campaigns (2017, 2018, and 2019). Subsequently, the link between the level of CRC severity and the predictive factors, including campaign year and time to colonoscopy, was analysed using polytomous multivariate regression. RESULTS: The one-month-colo (2017: 9.1% of 11,529 colonoscopies; 2018: 8.5% of 13,346; 2019: 5.7% of 7,881; 2020: 6.7% of 11,040; p < 0.001), the yield (65.2%, 64.1%, 62.4%, 60.8% respectively, p < 0.001) were significantly different between campaigns. The proportion of CRC level-4 (4.8% in 2017 (653 CRC); 7.6% in 2018 (674 CRC); 4.6% in 2019 (330 CRC) and 4.7% in 2020 (404 CRC); p < 0.29) was not significantly different between campaigns. The probability of having CRC with a high severity level was inversely related to the time to colonoscopy but not to the campaign year. Compared to patients having undergone colonoscopy within 30 days, the odds were significantly reduced by 60% in patients having undergone colonoscopy after 7 months (adjusted Odds-Ratio: 0.4 [0.3; 0.6]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The French indicators were certainly degraded before the first wave of the COVID-19. The delay in access to colonoscopy as well as its extension induced by the COVID-19 crisis had no impact in terms of cancer severity, due to a discriminatory approach prioritizing patients with evident symptoms.

Supply and quality of colonoscopy according to the characteristics of gastroenterologists in the French population-based colorectal-cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: Since its complete roll-out in 2009, the French colorectal cancer screening program (CRCSP) experienced 3 major constraints [use of a less efficient Guaiac-test (gFOBT), stopping the supply of Fecal-Immunochemical-Test kits (FIT), and suspension of the program due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] affecting its effectiveness. AIM: To describe the impact of the constraints in terms of changes in the quality of screening-colonoscopy (Quali-Colo). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included screening-colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists between Jan-2010 and Dec-2020 in people aged 50-74 living in Ile-de-France (France). The changes in Quali-colo (Proportion of colonoscopies performed beyond 7 mo (Colo_7 mo), Frequency of serious adverse events (SAE) and Colonoscopy detection rate) were described in a cohort of Gastroenterologists who performed at least one colonoscopy over each of the four periods defined according to the chronology of the constraints [gFOBT: Normal progress of the CRCSP using gFOBT (2010-2014); FIT: Normal progress of the CRCSP using FIT (2015-2018); STOP-FIT: Year (2019) during which the CRCSP experienced the cessation of the supply of test kits; COVID: Program suspension due to the COVID-19 health crisis (2020)]. The link between each dependent variable (Colo_7 mo; SAE occurrence, neoplasm detection rate) and the predictive factors was analyzed in a two-level multivariate hierarchical model. RESULTS: The 533 gastroenterologists (cohort) achieved 21509 screening colonoscopies over gFOBT period, 38352 over FIT, 7342 over STOP-FIT and 7995 over COVID period. The frequency of SAE did not change between periods (gFOBT: 0.3%; FIT: 0.3%; STOP-FIT: 0.3%; and COVID: 0.2%; P = 0.10). The risk of Colo_7 mo doubled between FIT [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.2 (1.1; 1.2)] and STOP-FIT [aOR: 2.4 (2.1; 2.6)]; then, decreased by 40% between STOP-FIT and COVID [aOR: 2.0 (1.8; 2.2)]. Regardless of the period, this Colo_7 mo's risk was twice as high for screening colonoscopy performed in a public hospital [aOR: 2.1 (1.3; 3.6)] compared to screening-colonoscopy performed in a private clinic. The neoplasm detection, which increased by 60% between gFOBT and FIT [aOR: 1.6 (1.5; 1.7)], decreased by 40% between FIT and COVID [aOR: 1.1 (1.0; 1.3)]. CONCLUSION: The constraints likely affected the time-to-colonoscopy as well as the colonoscopy detection rate without impacting the SAE's occurrence, highlighting the need for a respectable reference time-to-colonoscopy in CRCSP.

The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Measuring adenoma detection is a priority in the quality improvement process for colonoscopy. Our aim was (1) to determine the most appropriate quality indicators to assess the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy and (2) to establish benchmark rates for the French colorectal cancer screening programme. METHODS: Retrospective study of all colonoscopies performed in average-risk asymptomatic people aged 50-74 years after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test in eight administrative areas of the French population-based programme. RESULTS: We analysed 42,817 colonoscopies performed by 316 gastroenterologists. Endoscopists who had an adenoma detection rate around the benchmark of 35% had a mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy varying between 0.36 and 0.98. 13.9% of endoscopists had a mean number of adenomas above the benchmark of 0.6 and an adenoma detection rate below the benchmark of 35%, or inversely. Correlation was excellent between mean numbers of adenomas and polyps per colonoscopy (Pearson coefficient r=0.90, p<0.0001), better than correlation between mean number of adenomas and adenoma detection rate (r=0.84, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy. Benchmark could be established at 0.6 in the French programme.