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-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Role of P53 and K-ras in the Diagnosis of Early Colorectal Cancer: a One-year, Single-center Analysis

P127 Inflammatory Bowel Disease-associated colorectal cancers: retrospective cohort study from a tertiary centre surveillance programme over 10 years

Colorectal cancer prevention by a CLEAR principles-based colonoscopy protocol: an observational study.

Cancer Biology or Ineffective Surveillance? A Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of Colitis-Associated Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers

How to learn from interval cancers in colorectal cancer screening

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

Health Care Provider Characteristics Associated With Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences and Use

Beyond the scope: diverticular disease and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a population-based cohort study of fecal occult blood test-positive colonoscopies

Occurrence of Colorectal Cancer After a Negative Colonoscopy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive participants from a colorectal cancer screening program

Big data approach in the field of gastric and colorectal cancer research

Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and concomitant inflammatory bowel disease compared with primary sclerosing cholangitis only

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: THE THREE-YEAR POST-COLONOSCOPY COLORECTAL CANCER RATE AS PER THE WEO METHODOLOGY

Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff