Cited by 129Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions

Adler, Jeffrey, Robertson, Douglas J·2015·American Journal of Gastroenterology

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

Crossref · 10.1038/ajg.2015.365

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adler, J., & Robertson, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
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