Search

Goal: We sought to quantify the independent effects of age, sex, and race/ethnicity on risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced neoplasia (AN) in Veterans., Study: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of Veterans aged 40 to 80 years who had diagnostic or screening colonoscopy between 2002 and 2009 from 1 of 14 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Natural language processing identified the most advanced finding and location (proximal, distal). Logistic regression was used to examine the adjusted, independent effects of age, sex, and race, both overall and in screening and diagnostic subgroups., Results: Among 90,598 Veterans [mean (SD) age 61.7 (9.4) y, 5.2% (n=4673) were women], CRC and AN prevalence was 1.3% (n=1171) and 8.9% (n=8081), respectively. Adjusted CRC risk was higher for diagnostic versus screening colonoscopy [odds ratio (OR)=3.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.19-4.50], increased with age, was numerically (but not statistically) higher for men overall (OR=1.53; 95% CI, 0.97-2.39) and in the screening subgroup (OR=2.24; 95% CI, 0.71-7.05), and was higher overall for Blacks and Hispanics, but not in screening. AN prevalence increased with age, and was present in 9.2% of men and 3.9% of women [adjusted OR=1.90; 95% CI, 1.60-2.25]. AN risk was 11% higher in Blacks than in Whites overall (OR=1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), was no different in screening, and was lower in Hispanics (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98). Women had more proximal CRC (63% vs. 39% for men; P=0.03), but there was no difference in proximal AN (38.3% for both genders)., Conclusions: Age and race were associated with AN and CRC prevalence. Blacks had a higher overall prevalence of both CRC and AN, but not among screenings. Men had increased risk for AN, while women had a higher proportion of proximal CRC. These findings may be used to tailor when and how Veterans are screened for CRC., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: An accurate system for tracking of colonoscopy quality and surveillance intervals could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance. The purpose of this study was to create and test such a system across multiple institutions utilizing natural language processing (NLP)., Methods: From 42,569 colonoscopies with pathology records from 13 centers, we randomly sampled 750 paired reports. We trained (n=250) and tested (n=500) an NLP-based program with 19 measurements that encompass colonoscopy quality measures and surveillance interval determination, using blinded, paired, annotated expert manual review as the reference standard. The remaining 41,819 nonannotated documents were processed through the NLP system without manual review to assess performance consistency. The primary outcome was system accuracy across the 19 measures., Results: A total of 176 (23.5%) documents with 252 (1.8%) discrepant content points resulted from paired annotation. Error rate within the 500 test documents was 31.2% for NLP and 25.4% for the paired annotators (P=0.001). At the content point level within the test set, the error rate was 3.5% for NLP and 1.9% for the paired annotators (P=0.04). When eight vaguely worded documents were removed, 125 of 492 (25.4%) were incorrect by NLP and 104 of 492 (21.1%) by the initial annotator (P=0.07). Rates of pathologic findings calculated from NLP were similar to those calculated by annotation for the majority of measurements. Test set accuracy was 99.6% for CRC, 95% for advanced adenoma, 94.6% for nonadvanced adenoma, 99.8% for advanced sessile serrated polyps, 99.2% for nonadvanced sessile serrated polyps, 96.8% for large hyperplastic polyps, and 96.0% for small hyperplastic polyps. Lesion location showed high accuracy (87.0-99.8%). Accuracy for number of adenomas was 92%., Conclusions: NLP can accurately report adenoma detection rate and the components for determining guideline-adherent colonoscopy surveillance intervals across multiple sites that utilize different methods for reporting colonoscopy findings.