Abstract:High quality performance is important to prevent colorectal cancers (CRCs) after colonoscopy. Therefore, we endoscopists are measured every day on our rates of cecal intubation, detection of polyps and adenomas, and patient satisfaction. That is great, and we support it. It helps us to understand our own performance in comparison to our peers, increases patient benefits, and reduces harms. After all, our endoscopies are there for the benefit of the people we treat: our patients. Occasionally, a patient who we have recently scoped gets cancer. This is not good, but it is inevitable because first the risk of cancer after colonoscopy can never be zero and second sometimes the cancer is not causally related to the performance of the colonoscopy (although good quality reduces the risk). Thanks to the modern endoscopy quality improvement systems we have set up, many endoscopy services are now able to track a CRC developing after a colonoscopy back to the colonoscopy that one of us performed some time prior to the diagnosis. The question is: how do we learn from such unwanted events to prevent them in the future? The current issue of Endoscopy features a study that sheds light on this important question by disentangling the reasons for CRCs after colonoscopy [1]. The study empaneled data from the nationwide CRC screening program in the Netherlands and constructed a cohort of patients who were diagnosed with CRC within about 5 years of their colonoscopy for a positive FIT screening test between 2014 and 2016 [1]. Out of over 116000 patients who were scoped after a positive FIT, 432 patients were diagnosed with CRC a median of 31 months after the colonoscopy (CRC diagnoses in the first 6 months after the colonoscopy were not included – this is common and well reasoned in studies of CRC after colonoscopy). "... the abbreviation PCCRC should be abandoned...I suggest keeping it simple and in line with what other fields in medicine are using, for instance the term "interval cancer" is well established..." The researchers followed guidance from the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) and categorized the cancers into four types [2]: cancers diagnosed before the date of the recommended surveillance colonoscopy cancers diagnosed at the recommended surveillance colonoscopy cancers diagnosed after the recommended surveillance colonoscopy cancers diagnosed after the recommended surveillance colonoscopy in patients where surveillance was not performed owing to co-morbidity. The WEO guidance document terms the first category "interval post-colonoscopy CRC" (PCCRC), and the three others "non-interval PCCRC." Most cancers in the Dutch study (52%) were in the first category. The most important part of the Dutch study is the thoroughly performed root-cause analysis of each cancer. It indicates that 74% of all cancers diagnosed before the date of the recommended surveillance colonoscopy are likely due to overlooked lesions. Incomplete removal or polyps not being removed were common reasons for the other cancer types, but the numbers were small and there is uncertainty around the observed point estimates. The findings of this new study are consistent with other recent evidence that many interval cancers are avoidable. A recent UK cohort found that approximately 70% of cancers after colonoscopy may be due to missed or incompletely removed polyps or lesions [3]. A couple of features in the new Dutch study deserve further consideration. First, the authors report a lower risk of cancer after colonoscopy compared with FIT-screening studies in some other European countries. Whether this is because of different background cancer risks in the populations, different FIT cutoffs in the national screening programs, or better training of endoscopists in the Netherlands is difficult to disentangle. Whether the Dutch results can be translated to colonoscopy screening programs instead of FIT programs is uncertain, but the absolute risks are likely to be smaller owing to the different risk profiles of individuals who undergo colonoscopy in colonoscopy screening programs compared with those within FIT programs. Second, the authors point out that the WEO guidance document requires an update to include possible missed advanced serrated polyps as a reason for interval cancer after colonoscopy. Currently, only for adenomas in the same segment are inferences allowed to be made about the reason for interval cancer in root-cause analyses [2]. Third, caution is warranted when comparing cancer stage for the different types of interval cancer. Because cancers detected at surveillance colonoscopy are detected earlier than clinically symptomatic cancers, such analyses are potentially invalid owing to lead-time bias and likely also overdiagnosis bias. Finally, if one wants to investigate the prognosis of interval cancer after screening, the most valid comparison group is clin -Abstract Truncated-

S386 Rates and Characteristics of Post-Polypectomy Interval Colorectal Cancer: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Risk Factors for Incomplete Polyp Resection During Colonoscopy

Incidence, characteristics, and predictive factors of post‐colonoscopy colorectal cancer

S435 Characteristics and Most Plausible Explanation for Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Cases in a Community-Based Practice

Risk Factors Related to Polyp Miss Rate of Short-Term Repeated Colonoscopy

[Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: Evaluation of a cohort in its clinical and colonoscopic characteristics, survival and its causes according to the World Endoscopy Organization]

Polyp detection rate and cumulative incidence of post‐colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Germany

Recurrence of Colorectal Neoplastic Polyps After Incomplete Resection

Root-cause Analysis of 762 Danish Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Patients

Preventable predictive factors of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease

Miss rate of colorectal neoplastic polyps and risk factors for missed polyps in consecutive colonoscopies

A30 RECURRENCE RATES AFTER ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF LARGE COLORECTAL POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Risk factors of post-polypectomy bleeding and recurrence in children with colorectal polyps after endoscopic mucosal resection: a retrospective cohort study

Frequency of endoscopic photodocumentation of large colorectal polyps

937 Barriers, Misconceptions and the Lack of Physicians' Recommendation Account for Poor Screening Uptake in Colorectal Compared With Cervical Cancer: Findings of a National Population Representative Survey

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

How to learn from interval cancers in colorectal cancer screening

Characteristics of Patients with Post-Colonoscopy Unplanned Hospital Visit: A Retrospective Single-Center Observational Study

Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Colorectal Cancer Risk by Genetic Variants in Populations with and Without Colonoscopy History