RESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The black population in the USA is a heterogeneous group composed of smaller subgroups from different origins. The definition of black in many colorectal cancer (CRC) risk studies is vague, and differences in CRC risk comparing black subpopulations have not been evaluated. The aim of the study is to compare advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) between two subgroups of black populations: African-American (AA) and Afro-Caribbean (AC). A secondary aim was to determine whether there are differences in prevalence of adenomas. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 3797 AA and AC patients undergoing first time screening colonoscopy in two different institutions in the USA. RESULTS: Overall adenoma prevalence was 29.3% for the entire population with 29.5% in AAs and 29.0% in AC with no statistically significant difference between the study groups (AOR: 1.02; 95% CI 0.88-1.18, P = 0.751). However, ACN was significantly higher in the AA group (11.8%) compared to AC (9.0%) (AOR: 1.30, 95% CI 1.02-1.66, P = 0.034). It was observed that AAs had ACN at a higher BMI than AC. After adjusting for BMI/ethnicity interactions, the difference in ACN between both groups became more significant (AOR: 1.93, 95% CI 1.16-3.23, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: AAs have a higher risk of ACN than AC. Current recommendations to start screening in average-risk AAs at an earlier age may not apply to other black subgroups.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma/etnología , Negro o Afroamericano/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias del Colon/etnología , Anciano , Región del Caribe/etnología , Femenino , Florida/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ohio/epidemiología , Prevalencia , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Open access colonoscopy (OAC) has gained widespread acceptance and has the potential to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, there is little data evaluating its appropriateness for CRC prevention. AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of OAC in CRC screening and polyp surveillance by comparing to procedures ordered by gastroenterologists (NOAC). As secondary outcomes, we compared the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR) between OAC and NOAC. METHODS: It is retrospective single-center study. Inclusion criteria included patients > 50 years of age undergoing a colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance. Appropriateness was defined as those colonoscopies performed within 12 months of the recommended 2012 consensus guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation and ADR. RESULTS: 5211 colonoscopies met inclusion criteria, and 64.9% were OAC. Screening OAC was appropriately 91.6% and NOAC 92.9% of the time (p = 0.179). Surveillance NOAC were inappropriate in 26.4% of cases, and surveillance OAC was 32.6% (p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that OAC did not influence ADR (OR for NOAC 0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.1; p = 0.644) or an adequate bowel preparation (OR for NOAC 1.11; 95% CI 0.91-1.36; p = 0.306). CONCLUSION: OAC performed similarly to NOAC for screening indications, quality of bowel preparation, and ADR. However, more surveillance procedures were inappropriate in the OAC group although both groups had a high number of inappropriate indications. Although OAC can be efficiently performed for screening indications, measures to decrease inappropriate surveillance colonoscopies are needed.