Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions
Abstract
There is good evidence that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been successful at reducing both CRC incidence and death. Colonoscopy, utilized as either a primary screening tool or a follow-up exam when other screening tests are positive, has significantly contributed to these encouraging trends. However, it is well recognized that colonoscopy is not perfectly sensitive for the detection of neoplasia and that CRC can be diagnosed within a short interval following a colonoscopy that did not detect one. The literature surrounding these cases has rapidly expanded over the last decade. Specifically, studies aimed at understanding the frequency of these events and the likely explanations for their occurrence have been performed. This review will highlight current knowledge around the epidemiology of interval post colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The common explanations for these cancers including missed lesions, new lesions, and incompletely resected lesions will be reviewed and their contribution to interval PCCRC estimated. Finally, the relationship of these putative explanations to potential opportunities to prevent interval PCCRC will be explored. Current approaches to prevention largely center on consistent adherence to quality colonoscopy standards. Future approaches include advances in technology to better visualize the colon and adequately resect detected neoplasia. Finally, improvement in training as well as development of a culture of continuous quality improvement will be es…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Higher adenoma missing rates are associated with an increased probability of interval cancer.
“Higher adenoma missing rates are associated with an increased probability of interval cancer [4 , 5] .”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
About 25% of adenomas are missed in tandem colonoscopies, and 12% of index colonoscopies are false negatives.
“studies using tandem colonoscopies showed that about 25% of adenomas were missed, and 12% of index colonoscopies (the first performed in the tandem procedure) were false negatives.”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
Cites
Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death
Corley, D. A., Jensen, C. D., Marks, A. R., Zhao, W. K., Lee, J. K., Doubeni, C. A., Zauber, A. G., de Boer, J., Fireman, B. H., Schottinger, J. E., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1309086 · Cited by 2,270 · see citing works
Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy
Nishihara, R., Wu, K., Lochhead, P., Morikawa, T., Liao, X., Qian, Z. R., Inamura, K., Kim, S. A., Kuchiba, A., Yamauchi, M., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1301969 · Cited by 1,483 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhao, S., Wang, S., Pan, P., Xia, T., Chang, X., Yang, X., Guo, L., Meng, Q., Yang, F., Qian, W., et al. (2019) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260 · Cited by 660 · see citing works
Atkin, W., Cross, A. J., Kralj-Hans, I., MacRae, E., Piggott, C., Pearson, S., Wooldrage, K., Brown, J., Lucas, F., Prendergast, A., et al. (2019) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta23010 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Adler, J., & Robertson, D. J.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Robertson, Douglas J
- ORCID
- Robertson, Douglas J
- Venue
- American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1657-1664
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159114510
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Purdue Climate Change Research Center, Purdue University
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA023108)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
- Keywords
- interval colorectal cancer, colonoscopy, colorectal cancer screening, missed lesions, new lesions, incomplete resection, colonoscopy quality, colorectal neoplasia detection, continuous quality improvement, colonoscopy training
- MeSH terms
- Colon, Colonoscopy, Humans, Mass Screening, Population Surveillance, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Incidence, Early Detection of Cancer, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review