ArticleCureus2024
Significant Missed Polyps in the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP): A Retrospective Analysis of Prevalence and Contributing Factors.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant public health challenge. Patients having abnormal faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results are offered a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of colonoscopies can, however, often be challenged by the occurrence of missed polyps. This study aims to assess the rate of significant missed polyps in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in the UK. Methods A retrospective analysis of BSCP screening data in the Cheshire region in the UK from 2020 to March 2023 was conducted. A significant polyp was defined as a polyp ≥ 10mm. The inclusion criteria included patients (age range: 54-74 years) who had had an index colonoscopy followed by site checks, repeats, or planned polypectomies. Results Out of 2,759 index colonoscopies, 261 (9.5%) met our criteria, and 23 (8.8%) of these had significant polyps. Of the 261, the missed polyp rate was 30% (453/1531 polyps). The overall significant missed polyp rate was 1.6% (24/1531). Of the missed polyps, 5% (24/453) were significant polyps. The majority (71%) of the significant polyps were found on the left of the colon. Men had a higher missed polyp rate (22%) compared to women (7%) (relative risk (RR) = 2.56, 95% CI: 2.1-3.13, p<0.0001). They also had a higher significant missed polyp rate (1.1%) compared to women (0.4%) (RR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1-5.8, p<0.05). A total of 50% of the bowel prep at index colonoscopy was rated as 'adequate/fair' and 79% of the bowel prep at the discovery of the significant polyp was rated as either 'excellent' or 'good' (odds ratio (OR) = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.07-13.5, p<0.05); 92% (22/24) of the significant polyps found were either tubular adenoma (TA) low-grade dysplasia (LGD) or tubular villous adenoma (TVA) LGD, and none were found to be cancerous. Conclusions Almost a third of all polyps detected were missed, and one in 20 of these were significant polyps, putting these patients in the high-risk group for CRC. Improving bowel preparation and monitoring patients with multiple polyps could reduce the rate of missed polyps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.