Incidence of advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy in patients with a personal history of colon adenomas: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff

One goal of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to prevent CRC incidence by removing precancerous colonic polyps, which are detected in up to 50% of screening examinations. Yet, the lifetime risk of CRC is 3.9%-4.3%, so it is clear that most of these individuals with polyps would not develop CRC in their lifetime. It is, therefore, a challenge to determine which individuals with polyps will benefit from follow-up, and at what intervals. There is some evidence that individuals with advanced polyps, based on size and histology, benefit from intensive surveillance. However, a large proportion of individuals will have small polyps without advanced histologic features (ie, "nonadvanced"), where the benefits of surveillance are uncertain and controversial. Demand for surveillance will further increase as more polyps are detected due to increased screening uptake, recent United States recommendations to expand screening to younger individuals, and emergence of polyp detection technology. We review the current understanding and clinical implications of the natural history, biology, and outcomes associated with various categories of colon polyps based on size, histology, and number. Our aims are to highlight key knowledge gaps, specifically focusing on certain categories of polyps that may not be associated with future CRC risk, and to provide insights to inform research priorities and potential management strategies. Optimization of CRC prevention programs based on updated knowledge about the future risks associated with various colon polyps is essential to ensure cost-effective screening and surveillance, wise use of resources, and inform efforts to personalize recommendations.

Risk of recurrent advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals with baseline non-advanced neoplasia followed up at 5 vs 7-10 years

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the commonest cancers, especially among the Asian populations. We compared the recurrence rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) at 5 year vs 7-10 years among individuals with non-advanced adenoma (NAA) detected and polypectomized at baseline colonoscopy in a large Chinese population.

METHODS

We extracted data of a large Chinese population with NAA polypectomized who received surveillance colonoscopy after 5 or 7-10 years from a large database (2008-2018). The outcome variable included recurrence of ACN at surveillance colonoscopy. We examined the association between length of surveillance and the outcome variable, whilst controlling for risk factors of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

We include 109 768 subjects who have received a baseline colonoscopy from our dataset. They were aged 67.35 (SD 9.84) years, and 60.9% of them were male subjects. The crude 5-year and 10-year recurrence rate of ACN was 1.50% and 2.42%, respectively (crude odds ratio = 1.629, 95% CI 1.362 to 1.949, P < 0.001). From the binary logistic regression model, individuals with surveillance colonoscopy performed at 10 years had a statistically higher recurrence rate of ACN than those followed-up at 5 year (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.544, 95% CI 1.266 to 1.877, P < 0.001), but the effect size of aOR is small.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a small difference in recurrence of ACN between individuals who received colonoscopy workup at 5 years vs 7-10 years. These findings support a 7-10 years surveillance period after baseline NAA was polypectomized.

Using New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to assess United States and European post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines

BACKGROUND

Our goal was to compare the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) high risk groups in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia on first follow-up colonoscopy and long-term colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

We compared advanced metachronous neoplasia risk (serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm or with dysplasia, advanced adenomas [≥ 1 cm, villous, high grade dysplasia], CRC) on first surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high risk findings according to ESGE versus USMSTF guidelines. We also compared the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of both guidelines for metachronous neoplasia.

RESULTS

The risk for metachronous neoplasia in our sample (n = 20 458) was higher in the high risk USMSTF (3 year) (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-14.9) and ESGE groups (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-15.0) compared with the lowest risk USMSTF (5.1 %; 95 %CI 4.7-5.5; P < 0.001) and ESGE categories (6.3 %; 95 %CI 6.0-6.7; P < 0.001), respectively. Adding other groups such as USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the 3-year category resulted in minimal change in the PPV and NPV for metachronous advanced neoplasia. High risk ESGE (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03, 95 %CI 1.97-4.65) and USMSTF (HR 3.07, 95 %CI 2.03-4.66) designations were associated with similar long-term CRC risk (CRC per 100 000 person-years: USMSTF 3-year group 3.54, 95 %CI 2.68-4.68; ESGE high risk group: 3.43, 95 %CI 2.57-4.59).

CONCLUSION

Performance characteristics for the ESGE and USMSTF recommendations are similar in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia and long-term CRC. The addition of risk groups, such as the USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the USMSTF 3-year category did not alter the PPV or NPV significantly.

Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Background

The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps.

Results

A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Rectal Cancer following Local Excision of Rectal Adenomas with Low-Grade Dysplasia-A Multicenter Study

Purpose: Rectal polyps with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) can be removed by local excision surgery (LE). It is unclear whether these lesions pose a higher risk for recurrence and cancer development and might warrant an early repeat rectal endoscopy. This study aims to assess the rectal cancer rate following local excision of LGD rectal lesions. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study including all patients that underwent LE for rectal polyps over a period of 11 years was conducted. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data of patients with LGD werecollected and analyzed. Results: Out of 274 patients that underwent LE of rectal lesions, 81 (30%) had a pathology of LGD. The mean patient age was 65 ± 11 years, and 52 (64%) were male. The mean distance from the anal verge was 7.2 ± 4.3 cm, and the average lesion was 3.2 ± 1.8 cm. Full thickness resection was achieved in 68 patients (84%), and four (5%) had involved margins for LGD. Nine patients (11%) had local recurrence and developed rectal cancer in an average time interval of 19.3 ± 14.5 months, with seven of them (78%) diagnosed less than two years after the initial LE. Seven of the nine patients were treated with another local excision, whilst one had a low anterior resection, and one was treated with radiation. The mean follow-up time was 25.3 ± 22.4 months. Conclusions: Locally resected rectal polyps with LGD may carry a significant risk of recurring and developing cancer within two years. This data suggests patients should have a closer surveillance protocol in place.

Korean Guidelines for Postpolypectomy Colonoscopic Surveillance: 2022 revised edition

Colonoscopic polypectomy is effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Premalignant polyps discovered during colonoscopy are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia. Postpolypectomy surveillance is the most important method for managing advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of the limited medical resources and concerns regarding colonoscopy complications. In these consensus guidelines, an analytic approach was used to address all reliable evidence to interpret the predictors of CRC or advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. The key recommendations state that the high-risk findings for metachronous CRC following polypectomy are as follows: adenoma ≥10 mm in size; 3 to 5 (or more) adenomas; tubulovillous or villous adenoma; adenoma containing high-grade dysplasia; traditional serrated adenoma; sessile serrated lesion containing any grade of dysplasia; serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size; and 3 to 5 (or more) sessile serrated lesions. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients who are most likely to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy and the ideal surveillance interval to prevent metachronous CRC.

What size cutoff level should be used to implement optical polyp diagnosis?

BACKGROUND : The risk of advanced pathology increases with polyp size, as does the potential for mismanagement when optical diagnosis is used. This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of patients who would be assigned inadequate surveillance intervals when different size cutoffs are adopted for use of optical diagnosis. METHODS : In a post hoc analysis of three prospective studies, the use of optical diagnosis was evaluated for three polyp size groups: 1-3, 1-5, and 1-10 mm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in whom advanced adenomas were found and optical diagnosis resulted in delayed surveillance. Secondary outcomes included agreements between surveillance intervals based on high confidence optical diagnosis and pathology outcomes, reduction in histopathological examinations, and proportion of patients who could receive an immediate surveillance recommendation. RESULTS : We included 3374 patients (7291 polyps ≤ 10 mm) undergoing complete colonoscopies (median age 66.0 years, 75.2 % male, 29.6 % for screening). The percentage of patients with advanced adenomas and either 2- or 7-year delayed surveillance intervals (n = 79) was 3.8 %, 15.2 %, and 25.3 % for size cutoffs of 1-3, 1-5, and 1-10 mm polyps, respectively (P < 0.001). Surveillance interval agreements between pathology and optical diagnosis for the three groups were 97.2 %, 95.5 %, and 94.2 %, respectively. Total reductions in pathology examinations for the three groups were 33.5 %, 62.3 %, and 78.2 %, respectively. CONCLUSION : A 3-mm cutoff for clinical implementation of optical diagnosis resulted in a very low risk of delayed management of advanced neoplasia while showing high surveillance interval agreement with pathology and a one-third reduction in overall requirement for pathology examinations.

Incidence of colorectal cancer at different screening intervals after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy: a meta-analysis of 811,181 participants

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence on the incidence of colorectal cancers (CRCs) at a follow-up screening colonoscopy (after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy) in individuals with no adenoma, low-risk adenomas, and high-risk adenomas.

METHODS

We included studies reporting the incidence of CRCs at different screening intervals after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy. The main outcome was pooled cumulative incidence rate of CRCs stratified by intervals of 3, 5, 10, and >10 years.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 811,181 participants were analyzed, including 10 multicenter studies and 3 national CRC screening programs. The cumulative incidence of CRCs was 0.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30, 0.97) in the high-risk-adenoma group at 3 years, 0.37% (95% CI: 0.13, 0.61) and 0.67% (95% CI: 0.36, 0.99) in the low-risk-adenoma group at 5 and 10 years, respectively, and 0.32% (95% CI: 0.20, 0.45) and 0.50% (95% CI: 0.30, 0.69) in the no-adenoma-group at 10 and >10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis summarizes the results of colonoscopy surveillance programs with detailed data support for different screening intervals. The data on date suggest that reasonable surveillance intervals are within 3 years for the high-risk-adenoma group, 5-10 years for the low-risk-adenoma group, and ≥10 years for the no-adenoma group.

[Korean Guidelines for Postpolypectomy Colonoscopic Surveillance: 2022 Revised Edition]

Colonoscopic polypectomy is effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Premalignant polyps discovered during colonoscopy are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia. Postpolypectomy surveillance is the most important method for managing advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of the limited medical resources and concerns regarding colonoscopy complications. In these consensus guidelines, an analytic approach was used to address all reliable evidence to interpret the predictors of CRC or advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. The key recommendations state that the high-risk findings for metachronous CRC following polypectomy are as follows: 1) adenoma ≥10 mm in size; 2) 3-5 (or more) adenomas; 3) tubulovillous or villous adenoma; 4) adenoma containing high-grade dysplasia; 5) traditional serrated adenoma; 6) sessile serrated lesion (SSL) containing any grade of dysplasia; 7) serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size; and 8) 3-5 (or more) SSLs. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients who are most likely to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy and the ideal surveillance interval to prevent metachronous CRC.

[Korean Guidelines for Postpolypectomy Colonoscopic Surveillance: 2022 Revised Edition]

Colonoscopic polypectomy is effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Premalignant polyps discovered during colonoscopy are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia. Postpolypectomy surveillance is the most important method for managing advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of the limited medical resources and concerns regarding colonoscopy complications. In these consensus guidelines, an analytic approach was used to address all reliable evidence to interpret the predictors of CRC or advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. The key recommendations state that the high-risk findings for metachronous CRC following polypectomy are as follows: 1) adenoma ≥10 mm in size; 2) 3-5 (or more) adenomas; 3) tubulovillous or villous adenoma; 4) adenoma containing high-grade dysplasia; 5) traditional serrated adenoma; 6) sessile serrated lesion (SSL) containing any grade of dysplasia; 7) serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size; and 8) 3-5 (or more) SSLs. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients who are most likely to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy and the ideal surveillance interval to prevent metachronous CRC.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Polyps One Year After Excision of High-Risk Adenomas

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple or large adenomas are considered to be high-risk for metachronous colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the risks of detecting colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps at 1-year surveillance colonoscopy in patients with >5 adenomas or adenomas >20 mm.

DESIGN

Descriptive, retrospective, multicentric, cohort study. We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

SETTINGS

This study included data from a multicenter cohort colorectal cancer screening program, conducted from January 2014 to December 2015, based on fecal immunochemical tests in Spain.

PATIENTS

We included 2119 participants with at least 1 adenoma ≥20 mm or ≥5 adenomas of any size.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

At 1 year, participants displayed 6 colorectal cancers (0.3%), 228 advanced adenomas (10.5%), and 58 advanced serrated polyps (2.7%). The adjusted analysis identified 2 factors associated with advanced neoplasia: >5 adenomas (odds ratio 1.53; 95% CI: 1.15-2.03; p = 0.004) and polyps in a proximal location (OR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15-2.02; p = 0.004).

LIMITATIONS

First, the sample size was relatively small compared to other studies with similar aims. Another limitation was the lack of a comparison group, which could have provided more practical results in terms of surveillance recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The colorectal cancer detection rate at a 1-year colonoscopy surveillance was low among patients classified at high risk of advanced neoplasia. The risk factors for advanced neoplasia were ≥5 adenomas and proximal polyps at baseline. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 .

RIESGO DE CNCER COLORRECTAL Y DE PLIPOS AVANZADOS UN AO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN DE ADENOMAS DE ALTO RIESGO

ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con adenomas múltiples o grandes se consideran de alto riesgo para desarrollar cáncer colorrectal metacrónico.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los riesgos de detectar cáncer colorrectal, adenoma avanzado y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de seguimiento al año, en pacientes con un número mayor o igual a 5 adenomas o adenomas de 20 mm o más.DISEÑO:Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, multicéntrico, de cohortes. Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los factores de riesgo potenciales para el desarrollo de una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, fueron evaluados mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.AJUSTES:Este estudio incluyó datos de un programa de cribado de cáncer colorrectal de cohorte multicéntrico, realizado entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2015, con base en pruebas inmunoquímicas de materia fecal, en España.PACIENTES:Incluimos 2119 participantes con al menos un adenoma ≥20 mm o con cinco o más adenomas de cualquier tamaño.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los potenciales factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, se evaluaron mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.RESULTADOS:Al año se encontraron en los pacientes participantes, 6 cánceres colorrectales (0,3%), 228 adenomas avanzados (10,5%) y 58 pólipos serrados avanzados (2,7%). Mediante el análisis ajustado se identificaron dos factores asociados con el desarrollo de neoplasia avanzada: un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas (razón de probabilidades 1,53; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,03; p = 0,004) y la presencia de pólipos en una ubicación proximal (razón de probabilidades 1,52; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,02; p = 0,004).LIMITACIONES:Primero, el tamaño de la muestra fue relativamente pequeño en comparación con otros estudios con objetivos similares. Otra limitación fue la falta de un grupo comparativo, que podría haber proporcionado resultados más prácticos, en términos de recomendaciones de vigilancia.CONCLUSIÓNES:La tasa de detección de cáncer colorrectal mediante una colonoscopia de vigilancia al año, fue baja entre los pacientes clasificados como de alto riesgo de neoplasia avanzada. Los factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada fueron; un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas y la presencia de pólipos proximales en la colonoscopia inicial de base. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 . ( Traducción-Eduardo Londoño-Schimmer ).

Compliance with follow-up guidelines after high-risk colorectal polyp removal: a population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After high-risk colorectal adenoma removal, colorectal cancer risk remains higher than that in the general population. Depending on polyp characteristics, a 3-month or 3-year follow-up colonoscopy is recommended, and clear follow-up instructions must be given to the patient. Our primary aim was to evaluate compliance with French follow-up recommendations. Second, we evaluated the impact of how the information was given and if patients actually underwent their control colonoscopy according to the instructions given.

METHODS

We collected data from the Burgundy polyp population-based registry and medical records from the endoscopy centers of the area. Between June 30, 2014 and July 1, 2015, 405 patients were included in this study.

RESULTS

Written follow-up instructions were provided to 345 patients (85.2%), and 184 of them (53.3%) complied with guidelines. For 29.9% the interval to follow-up colonoscopy was longer than recommended, and for 6.4% the interval was shorter. Among the 303 patients who had clear follow-up instructions, 42.2% had their control colonoscopy and 83.6% respected the stipulated interval. Follow-up instructions were found in the colonoscopy report in at least 49% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with follow-up guidelines was poor: Inappropriate intervals were often longer than recommended. Patients with written follow-up instructions and those who underwent follow-up colonoscopy mostly followed these instructions. Ensuring compliance with guidelines and giving written instructions to patients should be primary goals to achieve effective follow-up. Gastroenterologist training should be improved in this way.

Genome-Wide Association Study of Metachronous Colorectal Adenoma Risk among Participants in the Selenium Trial

Genetic variants related to colorectal adenoma may help identify those who are at highest risk of colorectal cancer development or illuminate potential chemopreventive strategies. The purpose of this genome-wide association study was to identify genetic variants that are associated with risk of developing a metachronous colorectal adenoma among 1,215 study participants of European descent from the Selenium Trial. Associations of variants were assessed with logistic regression analyses and validated in an independent case-control study population of 1,491 participants from the Colorectal Cancer Study of Austria (CORSA). No statistically significant genome-wide associations between any variant and metachronous adenoma were identified after correction for multiple comparisons. However, an intron variant of FAT3 gene, rs61901554, showed a suggestive association (P = 1.10 × 10-6) and was associated with advanced adenomas in CORSA (P = 0.04). Two intronic variants, rs12728998 and rs6699944 in NLRP3 were also observed to have suggestive associations with metachronous lesions (P = 2.00 × 10-6) in the Selenium Trial and were associated with advanced adenoma in CORSA (P = 0.03). Our results provide new areas of investigation for the genetic basis of the development of metachronous colorectal adenoma and support a role for FAT3 involvement in the Wnt/β-catenin pathway leading to colorectal neoplasia.Trial Registration number: NCT00078897 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Adenoma characteristics associated with post-polypectomy proximal colon cancer incidence: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is less effective at reducing cancer incidence in the proximal colon compared to the distal colorectum. We aimed to identify adenoma characteristics associated with proximal colon cancer (PCC).

METHODS

Endoscopy and pathology data for patients with ≥1 adenoma detected at baseline colonoscopy were obtained from 17 UK hospitals between 2001 and 2010. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PCC, and, for comparison, distal CRC incidence, by adenoma characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 18,431 patients, 152 and 105 developed PCC and distal CRC, respectively, over a median follow-up of 9.8 years. Baseline adenoma characteristics positively associated with PCC incidence included number (≥3 vs. < 3: aHR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.42-3.09), histology (tubulovillous/villous vs. tubular: aHR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.10-2.35) and location (any proximal vs. distal only: aHR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.20-2.42), for which there was borderline evidence of heterogeneity by subsite (p = 0.055). Adenoma dysplasia (high vs. low grade) was associated with distal CRC (aHR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.44-4.04), but not PCC (p-heterogeneity = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline adenoma number, histology and proximal location were independently associated with PCC and may be important to identify patients at higher risk for post-polypectomy PCC.

Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation.

SETTING

Seventeen NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance.

DATA SOURCES

Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England.

METHODS

Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821.

LIMITATIONS

The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients.

FUTURE WORK

Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Colorectal cancer surveillance by colonoscopy in a prospective, population-based long-term Swiss screening study - outcomes, adherence, and costs

Background The success of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends mainly on screening quality, patient adherence to surveillance, and costs. Consequently, it is essential to assess the performance over time.

Methods In 2000, a closed cohort study on CRC screening in individuals aged 50 to 80 was initiated in Uri, Switzerland. Participants who chose to undergo colonoscopy were followed over 18 years. We investigated the adherence to recommended surveillance and collected baseline characteristics and colonoscopy data. Risk factors at screening for the development of advanced adenomas were analyzed. Costs for screening and follow-up were evaluated retrospectively.

Results 1278 subjects with a screening colonoscopy were included, of which 272 (21.3%; 69.5% men) had adenomas, and 83 (6.5%) had advanced adenomas. Only 59.8% participated in a follow-up colonoscopy, half of them within the recommended time interval. Individuals with advanced adenomas at screening had nearly five times the risk of developing advanced adenomas compared to individuals without adenomas (24.3% vs. 5.0%, OR 4.79 CI 2.30–9.95). Individuals without adenomas developed advanced adenomas in 4.9%, including four cases of CRC; three of them without control colonoscopy. The villous component in adenomas smaller than 10 mm was not an independent risk factor. Costs for screening and follow-up added up to CHF 1’934’521 per 1’000 persons screened, almost half of them for follow-up examinations; 60% of these costs accounted for low-risk individuals.

Conclusion Our findings suggest that follow-up of screening colonoscopy should be reconsidered in Switzerland; in particular, long-term adherence is critical. Costs for follow-up could be substantially reduced by adopting less expensive long-term screening methods for low-risk individuals.

Prevalence of Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Black and White Patients at a Safety Net Hospital

Background and Aims

Current postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines are based primarily on data from non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs); thus, generalizability to non-Hispanic Blacks (NHBs) remains unknown. Hence, the primary objective of this study was to assess the validity of these guidelines for NHBs by comparing the prevalence of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) between NHWs and NHBs undergoing surveillance colonoscopy.

Methods

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of NHWs (N = 1500) and NHBs (N = 1260) aged 40-75 years who underwent surveillance colonoscopy at an academic safety net hospital between 2007 and 2017. The primary outcome measure was the prevalence of metachronous ACN, defined as an advanced adenoma, advanced sessile polyp, or invasive cancer. Multivariate logistic regression was used to measure associations between race/ethnicity and ACN prevalence after adjustment for potential confounding factors.

Results

Overall, the prevalence of metachronous ACN was similar for NHBs and NHWs (6.8% vs 7.4%, respectively; P = .60). The prevalence of metachronous cancers (0.2% vs 0.1%; P = .48), advanced adenomas (2.8% vs 3.8%; P = .14), advanced serrated polyps (3.5% vs 3.3%; P = .82), and large hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm (0.2% vs 0.6%, P = .24) were also similar between the 2 groups. Moreover, race was not a determinant of metachronous ACN after adjustment for age, sex, education, type of insurance, indication (screen/surveillance) for baseline colonoscopy, surveillance interval, and findings at baseline colonoscopy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.30; P = .78).

Conclusion

Our study finds no significant difference in the prevalence of metachronous ACN between NHWs and NHBs undergoing appropriate postpolypectomy surveillance at an urban safety net hospital, suggesting that current guidelines are appropriate for both NHWs and NHBs.

Post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy: Comparison of the updated guidelines

Background

Recently, three updated guidelines for post‐polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance (PPCS) have been published. These guidelines are based on a comprehensive summary of the literature, while some recommendations are similar, different surveillance intervals are recommended after detection of specific types of polyps.

Aim

In this review, we aimed to compare and contrast these recommendations.

Methods

The updated guidelines for PPCS were reviewed and the recommendations were compared.

Results

For patients with 1–4 adenomas <10 mm with low‐grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or 1–4 serrated polyps <10 mm without dysplasia, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE) (BSG/ACPGBI/PHE) guidelines do not recommend colonoscopic surveillance and instead recommend that the participate in routine CRC screening program (typically based on the fecal immunochemical test), while the USMSTF recommends surveillance colonoscopies 7–10 years after diagnosis of 1–2 tubular adenomas <10 mm and 3–5 years for 3–4 tubular adenomas of the same size. The USMSTF define adenomas with tubulovillous or villous histology as high‐risk adenomas; thus, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after 3 years. However, the ESGE and BSG do not consider such histology as a criterion for repeating colonoscopy at this short interval. For patients with 1–2 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) <10 mm and those with 3–4 SSPs <10 mm, the USMSTF recommends surveillance colonosocopy after 5–10 and 3–5 years, respectively.

≥3 Nonadvanced Adenomas are More Common in the Era of Contemporary Colonoscopy and Not Associated With Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia

INTRODUCTION

Data from standard definition colonoscopy era demonstrate patients with an advanced adenoma (≥10 mm, villous features or high-grade dysplasia) or ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas are considered high-risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN). Low-risk adenoma (LRA) patients are those with 1 to 2, <10 mm tubular adenomas. High definition colonoscopy, split-dose bowel preparation, and attention to adenoma detection enhance diminutive adenoma detection. We compared baseline adenoma characteristics between patients undergoing colonoscopy in a historic cohort (HC) and contemporary cohort (CC) to determine if number of patients with ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas are increased in CC, and if those features are associated with MAN in CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing their first colonoscopy in HC (<2006) and CC (≥2006) at age 50 and above were identified through natural language processing. Multivariable regression analysis compared baseline adenoma characteristics between HC and CC, and determined the association between baseline characteristics and MAN in CC patients.

RESULTS

In total, 255,074 colonoscopies were performed between 1990 and 2015. A total of 9773 colonoscopies performed in the HC and 59,531 in the CC were included. At baseline, CC patients were more likely to have ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas [odds ratio (OR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-2.6]. In 3,377 CC patients undergoing follow-up colonoscopy, the risk of MAN did not differ between patients with LRA versus those with ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas (6.3% vs. 4.6%, OR: 1.4, CI: 0.58-3.5) including 3-4 (6.1%, OR: 1.4, CI: 0.52-3.6) and ≥5 (7.7%, OR: 1.8, CI: 0.23-14.6), although few patients had ≥5 nonadvanced adenomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy in the contemporary era increases detection of patients with ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas, which do not increase the risk of MAN compared with LRA patients. A similar surveillance to LRA patients should be considered for those patients.

Combining the Fecal Immunochemical Test with a Logistic Regression Model for Screening Colorectal Neoplasia

Background: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a widely used strategy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with moderate sensitivity. To further increase the sensitivity of FIT in identifying colorectal neoplasia, in this study, we established a classifier model by combining FIT result and other demographic and clinical features.

Methods: A total of 4,477 participants were examined with FIT and those who tested positive (over 100 ng/ml) were followed up by a colonoscopy examination. Demographic and clinical information of participants including four domains (basic information, clinical history, diet habits and life styles) that consist of 15 features were retrieved from questionnaire surveys. A mean decrease accuracy (MDA) score was used to select features that are mostly related to CRC. Five different algorithms including logistic regression (LR), classification and regression tree (CART), support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network (ANN) and random forest (RF) were used to generate a classifier model, through a 10X cross validation process. Area under curve (AUC) and normalized mean squared error (NMSE) were used in the evaluation of the performance of the model.

Results: The top six features that are mostly related to CRC include age, gender, history of intestinal adenoma or polyposis, smoking history, gastrointestinal discomfort symptom and fruit eating habit were selected. LR algorithm was used in the generation of the model. An AUC score of 0.92 and an NMSE score of 0.076 were obtained by the final classifier model in separating normal individuals from participants with colorectal neoplasia.

Conclusion: Our results provide a new “Funnel” strategy in colorectal neoplasia screening via adding a classifier model filtering step between FIT and colonoscopy examination. This strategy minimizes the need of colonoscopy examination while increases the sensitivity of FIT-based CRC screening.

Follow-up of 3 Million Persons Undergoing Colonoscopy in Germany: Utilization of Repeat Colonoscopies and Polypectomies Within 10 Years

INTRODUCTION

Given the sparsity of longitudinal studies on colonoscopy use, we quantified utilization of repeat colonoscopy within 10 years and the proportion of persons with polypectomies at first repeat colonoscopy using a large German claims database.

METHODS

Based on the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database, we identified persons who underwent colonoscopy between 2006 and 2015 (index colonoscopy) and assessed colonoscopies and polypectomies during follow-up. We defined 3 subcohorts based on available procedure/diagnosis codes at index colonoscopy: persons with snare polypectomy, which is reimbursable for lesions ≥5 mm in size (cohort 1), with a forceps polypectomy (cohort 2), and without such procedures/diagnoses (cohort 3). We stratified all analyses by diagnostic vs screening index colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, we included 3,076,657 persons (cohort 1-3: 15%, 13%, 72%). Among persons with screening index colonoscopy (30%), the proportions with a repeat colonoscopy within 10 years in cohorts 1, 2, and 3 were 78%, 66%, and 43%, respectively, and a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy was performed in 27%, 17%, and 12%, respectively. In cohort 1, 32% of persons with a (first) repeat colonoscopy after 9 years had a snare polypectomy (after 3 years: 25%). Among persons with diagnostic index colonoscopies, 80%, 78%, and 65% had a repeat colonoscopy, and 27%, 17%, and 10% had a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Our study suggests substantial underuse of repeat colonoscopy among persons with previous snare polypectomy and overuse among lower risk groups. One-quarter of persons with a snare polypectomy at baseline had another snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy.

Long term outcomes of colon polyps with high grade dysplasia following endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND

The risk of recurrent colonic adenoma associated with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) colon polyps at baseline colonoscopy remains unclear. We conducted a clinical cohort study with patients who underwent polypectomy during screen colonoscopy to assess recurrent colonic adenoma risk factors.

METHODS

11,565 patients at our facility underwent screen colonoscopy between September 1998 and August 2007. Data from patients with HGD colon polyps who had undergone follow-up colonoscopy were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 211 patients was included. Rates of metachronous adenoma and advanced adenoma at follow-up were 58% and 20%, respectively. Mean follow-up period was 5.5 ± 1.8 (3-12) years. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that an adenoma count of ≥ 3 at baseline colonoscopy was strongly associated with overall recurrence, multiple recurrence, advanced recurrence, proximal recurrence, and distal adenoma recurrence with odds ratios of 4.32 (2.06-9.04 95% CI), 3.47 (1.67-7.22 95% CI), 2.55 (1.11-5.89 95% CI), 2.46 (1.16-5.22 95% CI), 2.89 (1.44-5.78 95% CI), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed gender (male) [P = 0.010; OR 3.09(1.32-7.25 95% CI)] and adenoma count ≥ 3 [P = 0.002; OR 3.08(1.52-6.24 95% CI)] at index colonoscopy to be significantly associated with recurrence of advanced adenoma.

CONCLUSION

Recurrence of colonic adenoma at time of follow-up colonoscopy is common in patients who undergo polypectomy for HGD colon adenomas during baseline colonoscopy. Risk of further developing advanced adenomas is associated with gender and the number of colon adenomas present.

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance aims to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines define low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, recommending different strategies for each. Evidence supporting the guidelines is limited. We examined CRC incidence and effects of surveillance on incidence among each risk group.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of 33 011 patients who underwent colonoscopy with adenoma removal at 17 UK hospitals, mostly (87%) from 2000 to 2010. Patients were followed up through 2016. Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to estimate effects of surveillance on CRC incidence adjusted for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared incidence with that in the general population.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 28 972 patients were available for analysis; 14 401 (50%) were classed as low-risk, 11 852 (41%) as intermediate-risk and 2719 (9%) as high-risk. Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, CRC incidence per 100 000 person-years was 140 (95% CI 122 to 162), 221 (195 to 251) and 366 (295 to 453), respectively. CRC incidence was 40%-50% lower with a single surveillance visit than with none: hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (0.29 to 0.82) in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk (SIR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02) and intermediate-risk (1.16, 0.97 to 1.37) patients, but higher among high-risk patients (1.91, 1.39 to 2.56).

CONCLUSION

Postpolypectomy surveillance reduces CRC risk. However, even without surveillance, CRC risk in some low-risk and intermediate-risk patients is no higher than in the general population. These patients could be managed by screening rather than surveillance.

Risk Factors for Recurrent Colorectal Polyps

The recurrence of colorectal polyps is caused by various factors and leads to the carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer, which ranks third in incidence and fourth in mortality among cancers worldwide. The potential risk factors for colorectal polyp recurrence have been demonstrated in multiple trials. However, an article that pools and summarizes the various results is needed. This review enumerates and analyzes some risk factors in terms of patient characteristics, procedural operations, polyp characteristics, and dietary aspects to propose some effective prophylactic measures. This review aimed to provide a reference for clinical application and guide patients to prevent colorectal polyp recurrence in a more effective manner.

Risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after polypectomy: a Swedish record-linkage study

BACKGROUND

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after colorectal polyp removal remains unclear. We aimed to assess colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in individuals with removal of different histological subtypes of polyps relative to the general population.

METHODS

We did a matched cohort study through prospective record linkage in Sweden in patients aged at least 18 years with a first diagnosis of colorectal polyps in the nationwide gastrointestinal ESPRESSO histopathology cohort (1993-2016). For each polyp case, we identified up to five matched reference individuals from the Total Population Register on the basis of birth year, age, sex, calendar year of biopsy, and county of residence. We excluded patients and reference individuals with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer either before or within the first 6 months after diagnosis of the index polyp. Polyps were classified by morphology codes into hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated polyps, tubular adenomas, tubulovillous adenomas, and villous adenomas. Colorectal cancer cases were identified from the Swedish Cancer Registry, and cause-of-death data were retrieved from the Cause of Death Register. We collected information about the use of endoscopic examination before and after the index biopsy from the Swedish National Patient Registry, and counted the number of endoscopies done before and after the index biopsies. We calculated cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality at 3, 5, 10, and 15 years, and computed hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model within each of the matched pairs.

FINDINGS

178 377 patients with colorectal polyps and 864 831 matched reference individuals from the general population were included in our study. The mean age of patients at polyp diagnosis was 58·6 (SD 13·9) years for hyperplastic polyps, 59·7 (14·2) years for sessile serrated polyps, 63·9 (12·9) years for tubular adenomas, 67·1 (12·1) years for tubulovillous adenomas, and 68·9 (11·8) years for villous adenomas. During a median of 6·6 years (IQR 3·0-11·6) of follow-up, we documented 4278 incident colorectal cancers and 1269 colorectal cancer-related deaths in patients with a polyp, and 14 350 incident colorectal cancers and 5242 colorectal cancer deaths in general reference individuals. The 10-year cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer was 1·6% (95% CI 1·5-1·7) for hyperplastic polyps, 2·5% (1·9-3·3) for sessile serrated polyps, 2·7% (2·5-2·9) for tubular adenomas, 5·1% (4·8-5·4) for tubulovillous adenomas, and 8·6% (7·4-10·1) for villous adenomas compared with 2·1% (2·0-2·1) in reference individuals. Compared with reference individuals, patients with any polyps had an increased risk of colorectal cancer, with multivariable HR of 1·11 (95% CI 1·02-1·22) for hyperplastic polyps, 1·77 (1·34-2·34) for sessile serrated polyps, 1·41 (1·30-1·52) for tubular adenomas, 2·56 (2·36-2·78) for tubulovillous adenomas, and 3·82 (3·07-4·76) for villous adenomas (p<0·05 for all polyp subtypes). There was a higher proportion of incident proximal colon cancer in patients with serrated (hyperplastic and sessile) polyps (52-57%) than in those with conventional (tubular, tubulovillous, and villous) adenomas (30-46%). For colorectal cancer mortality, a positive association was found for sessile serrated polyps (HR 1·74, 95% CI 1·08-2·79), tubulovillous adenomas (1·95, 1·69-2·24), and villous adenomas (3·45, 2·40-4·95), but not for hyperplastic polyps (0·90, 0·76-1·06) or tubular adenomas (0·97, 0·84-1·12).

INTERPRETATION

In a largely screening-naive population, compared with individuals from the general population, patients with any polyps had a higher colorectal cancer incidence, and those with sessile serrated polyps, tubulovillous adenomas, and villous adenomas had a higher colorectal cancer mortality.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, American Gastroenterological Association, Union for International Cancer Control.

Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death After Adenoma Removal in a Large, Community-based Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings.

METHODS

Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18).

CONCLUSIONS

With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas.

Baseline Colonoscopy Findings Associated With 10-Year Outcomes in a Screening Cohort Undergoing Colonoscopy Surveillance

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes of ongoing colonoscopic screening and surveillance in a screening population. We aimed to determine the 10-year risk for advanced neoplasia (defined as adenomas ≥10mm, adenomas with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or colorectal cancer [CRC]) and assessed whether baseline colonoscopy findings were associated with long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We collected data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Study on 3121 asymptomatic veterans (50-75 years old) who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 1994 through 1997 at 13 medical centers and were then followed for 10 years or until death. We included 1915 subjects with at least 1 surveillance colonoscopy and estimated cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia by Kaplan-Meier curves. We then fit a longitudinal joint model to estimate risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination after baseline, adjusting for multiple colonoscopies within individuals.

RESULTS

Through 10 years of follow-up, there were 146 individuals among all baseline colonoscopy groups found to have at least 1 incident advanced neoplasia. The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was highest among those with baseline CRC (43.7%; 95% CI 13.0%-74.4%), followed by those with baseline advanced adenoma (AA) (21.9%; 95% CI 15.7-28.1). The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was 6.3% (95% CI 4.1%-8.5%) and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7%-5.4%) for baseline 1 to 2 small adenomas (<1cm, and without villous histology or high-grade dysplasia) and no neoplasia, respectively (log-rank P = .10). After adjusting for prior surveillance, the risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination was not significantly increased in veterans with 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline (odds ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.67-1.41) compared with veterans with no baseline neoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline screening colonoscopy findings associate with advanced neoplasia within 10 years. Individuals with only 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline have a low risk of advanced neoplasia over 10 years. Alternative surveillance strategies, could be considered for these individuals.

Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Removal of Adenomas During Screening Colonoscopies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Recommendation of surveillance colonoscopy should be based on risk of colorectal cancer and death after adenoma removal. We aimed to develop a risk classification system based on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality following adenoma removal.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter population-based cohort study of 236,089 individuals (median patient age, 56 years; 37.8% male) undergoing screening colonoscopies with adequate bowel cleansing and cecum intubation at 132 centers in the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, from 2000 through 2011. Subjects were followed for a median 7.1 years and information was collected on colorectal cancer development and death. We used recursive partitioning and multivariable Cox models to identify associations between colorectal cancer risk and patient and adenoma characteristics (diameter, growth pattern, grade of dysplasia, and number of adenomas). We developed a risk classification system based on standardized incidence ratios, using data from the Polish population for comparison. The primary endpoints were colorectal cancer incidence and colorectal cancer death.

RESULTS

We identified 130 colorectal cancers in individuals who had adenomas removed at screening (46.5 per 100,000 person-years) vs 309 in individuals without adenomas (22.2 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with individuals without adenomas, adenomas ≥20 mm in diameter and high-grade dysplasia were associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (adjusted hazard ratios 9.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.39-13.39, and 3.58; 95% CI 1.96-6.54, respectively). Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer risk was higher or comparable only for individuals with adenomas ≥20 mm in diameter (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 2.07; 95% CI 1.40-2.93) or with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39-1.41), whereas for individuals with other adenoma characteristics the risk was lower (SIR 0.35; 95% CI 0.28-0.44). We developed a high-risk classification based on adenoma size ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia (instead of the current high-risk classification cutoff of ≥3 adenomas or any adenoma with villous growth pattern, high-grade dysplasia, or ≥10 mm in diameter). Our classification system would reduce the number of individuals classified as high-risk and requiring intensive surveillance from 15,242 (36.5%) to 3980 (9.5%), without increasing risk of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomas (risk difference per 100,000 person-years, 5.6; 95% CI -10.7 to 22.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Using data from the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we developed a risk classification system that would reduce the number of individuals classified as high risk and require intensive surveillance more than 3-fold, without increasing risk of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomas. This system could optimize the use of surveillance colonoscopy.

Artificial Intelligence and Polyp Detection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the history, recent advances, and ongoing challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in colonic polyp detection.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hand-crafted AI algorithms have recently given way to convolutional neural networks with the ability to detect polyps in real-time. The first randomized controlled trial comparing an AI system to standard colonoscopy found a 9% increase in adenoma detection rate, but the improvement was restricted to polyps smaller than 10 mm and the results need validation. As this field rapidly evolves, important issues to consider include standardization of outcomes, dataset availability, real-world applications, and regulatory approval.

SUMMARY

AI has shown great potential for improving colonic polyp detection while requiring minimal training for endoscopists. The question of when AI will enter endoscopic practice depends on whether the technology can be integrated into existing hardware and an assessment of its added value for patient care.

Screening for Colon Cancer in Older Adults: Risks, Benefits, and When to Stop

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer and second leading cause of mortality from cancer in the United States. As the population ages, decisions regarding the initiation and cessation of screening and surveillance for CRC are of increasing importance. In elderly patients, the risks of CRC and the presenting signs and symptoms are similar to those in younger patients. Screening and ongoing surveillance should be considered in patients who have a life expectancy of 10 years or more. Life expectancy estimates can be calculated using online calculators. If screening is deemed appropriate, the choice of which test to use first is unclear. Currently, there are a number of modalities available to screen for CRC, including both invasive modalities (eg, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, capsule colonoscopy, and computed tomographic colonography) and noninvasive modalities (fecal immunochemical test, stool DNA testing, and blood testing). Colonoscopy and other invasive testing options are considered safe, but the risks of complications of the bowel preparation, the procedure, and sedation medications are all increased in older patients. In contrast, noninvasive testing provides a safe initial test; however, it is important to consider the increased false-positive rates in the elderly, and a positive test result will usually necessitate colonoscopy to establish the diagnosis. Ongoing screening and surveillance should be a shared decision-making process with the patient based on multiple factors including the patient's morbidity and mortality risk from CRC and his or her underlying comorbidities, the patient's functional status, and the patient's preferences for screening. Ultimately, the decision to initiate or discontinue screening for CRC in older patients should be done based on a case-by-case individualized discussion.

Further Defining the 2012 Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines for Surveillance of High-risk Adenomas: Is a 3-Year Interval Needed for All Patients?

GOALS

We set out to determine whether variation from this 3-year follow-up interval was associated with the finding of subsequent high-risk adenoma (HRA).

BACKGROUND

HRAs include the following: (1) an adenoma measuring ≥10 mm, (2) ≥3 adenomas found during a single procedure, and (3) an adenoma with high-grade dysplasia or villous architecture. The current Multi-Society Task Force guideline for timing of surveillance colonoscopy after removal of a HRA is 3 years.

STUDY

In 2016, we analyzed 495 patients who had a HRA removed during a 2008 colonoscopy. We compared the frequency of finding another HRA at follow-up intervals. We used the current guidelines as our referent group and performed logistical regression to identify whether any patient characteristics, procedural factors, or type of HRA predicted the development of HRAs on follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Individuals who followed-up at a median of 4.5 years did not have more HRA on follow-up compared with those who followed-up at 3 years (25.2% vs. 21.0%, P=0.062). These groups had similar baseline characteristics. Older individuals, male gender, having a history of polyps, and piecemeal resection of an HRA predicted future HRAs. The removal of ≥3 adenomas in 2008 as well as a combination of multiple, large, and advanced polyps showed a higher risk of future HRAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2012 Multi-Society Task Force recommendation of 3-year follow-up after removal of HRAs may not apply to all patients. We showed that a combination of patient demographics, procedural factors, and pathology best determines the surveillance colonoscopy interval.

Update in Surveillance Recommendations in Individuals With Conventional Adenomas

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conventional adenomas, which are precursors to almost 70% of colorectal carcinomas, are found in more than one-third of screening colonoscopies. Surveillance recommendations, based on adenoma size, histology, and number, have evolved over the years and are currently reflective of index adenoma categorization as either low-risk (LRA) or high-risk (HRA). In this review, recent guideline recommendations as well as primary data that have helped to shape these recommendations are presented.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data have demonstrated that individuals with HRA on index exams may be at increased risk for CRC while those with LRA may have a minimal long-term risk for CRC, similar to those adults with normal index exams. Furthermore, the quality of the index exams is important for minimizing CRC risk. While individuals with HRA may require close surveillance intervals of 3 years, those with LRA or normal exams may need longer such as 10-year follow-up.

Endoscopic surveillance after colonic polyps and colorrectal cancer resection. 2018 update

There is limited scientific evidence available to stratify the risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer after resection of colonic polyps and to determine surveillance intervals and is mostly based on observational studies. However, while awaiting further evidence, the criteria of endoscopic follow-up needs to be unified in our setting. Therefore, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine, the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, and the Colorectal Cancer Screening Group of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology, have written this consensus document, which is included in chapter 10 of the "Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Update". Important developments will also be presented as regards the previous edition published in 2009. First of all, situations that require and do not require endoscopic surveillance are established, and the need of endoscopic surveillance of individuals who do not present a special risk of metachronous colon cancer is eliminated. Secondly, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are established in individuals with serrated polyps. Finally, unlike the previous edition, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are given in patients operated on for colorectal cancer. At the same time, it represents an advance on the European guideline for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening, since it eliminates the division between intermediate risk group and high risk group, which means the elimination of a considerable proportion of colonoscopies of early surveillance. Finally, clear recommendations are given on the absence of need for follow-up in the low risk group, for which the European guidelines maintained some ambiguity.

Risk of Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia in Patients With Multiple Diminutive Adenomas

OBJECTIVES

Individuals with advanced adenomas or three or more adenomas have a higher risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia (AN) and are recommended to undergo surveillance colonoscopy at shorter intervals. However, it is questionable whether patients with multiple (three or more) non-advanced diminutive adenomas should be considered as high-risk.

METHODS

We analyzed 5482 patients diagnosed with one or more adenomas during their first colonoscopy screening and who underwent a follow-up colonoscopy. Patients were categorized into four groups based on adenoma characteristics at baseline: Group 1, 1-2 non-advanced adenomas; Group 2, ≥3 non-advanced, diminutive (1 to 5 mm) adenomas; Group 3, ≥3 non-advanced, small (6-9 mm) adenomas; and Group 4, advanced adenomas.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 38 months, the incidence of metachronous AN at surveillance colonoscopy was 5.6%. The incidence of AN was 3.9% in group 1, 5.9% in group 2, 10.6% in group 3, and 22.1% in group 4. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] for metachronous AN between group 2, group 3, and group 4, and low risk group 1 were 1.71 (0.99-2.94), 2.76 (1.72-4.44), and 5.23 (3.57-7.68), respectively. Compared with group 4, the adjusted HRs (95% CIs) for group 1, group 2, and group 3 were 0.19 (0.13-0.28), 0.32 (0.18-0.59), and 0.52 (0.31-0.89), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that patients with three or more non-advanced diminutive adenomas had a borderline increased risk of metachronous AN compared with patients with low risk adenomas.

Young patients with sporadic colorectal adenomas: current endoscopic surveillance practices and outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

For young individuals (age <40 years) without strong family histories that would put them at risk for genetic colorectal cancer syndromes, it is unclear if national Multi-Society Task Force surveillance recommendations apply or if endoscopists follow these guideline recommendations when such patients are incidentally found to have adenoma(s) on colonoscopy.

METHODS

We reviewed records on young (age <40 years) patients, with either no family history or only a moderate family history (1 first-degree family member with colorectal cancer at age ≥50), who were found to have neoplastic polyp(s) on their index colonoscopy. We assessed the pattern of endoscopist surveillance recommendations, whether endoscopist recommendations complied with national guidelines, and compliance with surveillance recommendations.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one subjects were included, of whom 19 (13.5%) had a moderate family history of colorectal cancer. For patients with non-high-risk findings, 27.7% were asked to repeat their colonoscopy in ≤3 years and 99.0% within 5 years. Endoscopist surveillance recommendation compliance rates with national guidelines were >65.0% for low-risk neoplasia but lower for high-risk (40.0%), nonpolypoid (44.2%), and serrated neoplasia (54.2%, P < .001 for all). Subjects whose endoscopist recommendations were noncompliant with guidelines were usually recalled too early (96%). Only 24.7% of subjects were actually compliant with endoscopist surveillance recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

For young patients with neoplastic polyp(s) but no strong family history, most endoscopists complied with national guidelines and recommended repeat colonoscopy in 3 to 5 years. However, relatively few patients were compliant with repeat colonoscopy recommendations. For most cases that were noncompliant with guidelines, patients were recalled too early as opposed to too late.

The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea

Background/Aims

Little is known for the capacity and quality of colonoscopy, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea. This study aimed to investigate the present and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea.

Methods

We surveyed representative endoscopists of 72 endoscopy units from June to August 2015, using a 36-item questionnaire regarding colonoscopic capacity, quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines of each hospitals.

Results

Among the 62 respondents who answered the questionnaire, 51 respondents were analyzed after exclusion of 11 incomplete answers. Only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units can afford to perform additional colonoscopies in addition to current practice, and the potential maximum number of colonoscopies per week was only 42. The quality of colonoscopy was variable as reporting of quality indicators of colonoscopy were considerably variable (29.4%–94.1%) between endoscopy units. Furthermore, there are substantial gaps in the adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, as concordance rate for guideline recommendation was less than 50% in most scenarios.

Conclusions

The potential capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea was suboptimal. Considering suboptimal reporting of colonoscopic quality indicators and low adherence rate for colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, quality improvement of colonoscopy should be underlined in Korea.

Incidence and risk factors of advanced neoplasia after endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic laterally spreading lesions

PURPOSE

To investigate advanced neoplasia (AN) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs).

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent injection-assisted EMR of colonic LSLs ≥ 10 mm was performed. Primary outcome was overall rate of AN at initial surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were the rates of residual AN (rAN) at the EMR site and metachronous AN (mAN), and analysis of risk factors for AN, including effect of surveillance guidance.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-four patients underwent successful EMR for 388 LSLs. AN occurred in 66/374 (17.6%) patients on initial surveillance colonoscopy at median follow-up of 364.5 days. Two patients had both rAN and mAN, for a total of 68 instances of AN, including 30/374 (8.0%) cases of rAN and 38/374 (10.2%) cases of mAN. On multivariate analysis, use of piecemeal resection was associated with increased likelihood of residual AN (P = 0.003, OR 9.2, 95% CI 2.1-33.3). Twenty-nine out of thirty cases (96.7%) of rAN were successfully endoscopically managed at surveillance colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

AN occurred in 17.6% of all patients at initial surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 1 year after EMR. Roughly half of the instances of AN were metachronous lesions. Our data support a 1-year surveillance interval after EMR of LSLs ≥ 10 mm with careful inspection of the entire colon, not just the prior resection site.

The effect of small or diminutive adenomas at baseline colonoscopy on the risk of developing metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia: KASID multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The clinical significance of diminutive or small adenomas remains ill defined.

AIMS

We evaluated the clinical impact of diminutive or small adenomas at baseline on the risk of developing metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRN).

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 2252 patients with 1 or more colorectal adenomas at baseline and subsequent follow-up colonoscopy. Baseline colonoscopy findings were classified into 5 groups: 1 or 2 tubular adenomas (TAs) (<10 mm); 3-10 diminutive TAs (≤5 mm); 3-10 TAs, including 1 or 2 small adenomas (6-10 mm); 3-10 TAs, including 3 or more small adenomas; and advanced adenoma.

RESULTS

In multivariate analysis, after adjusting for possible confounding variables (age at baseline, sex, body mass index, smoking habits, family history of colorectal cancer, regular use of aspirin or NSAIDs, and adenoma location), 3-10 TAs including 3 or more small adenomas (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.36, p = 0.034) and advanced adenoma (HR = 2.14, p < 0.001) were independent predictors for the risk of developing metachronous advanced CRN. However, 3-10 diminutive TAs or 3-10 TAs, including 1 or 2 small adenomas, were not associated with this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiplicity of diminutive TAs, without advanced lesions, showed no clinical significance for risk of developing metachronous advanced CRN.

Higher incidence of metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with synchronous advanced neoplasia and left-sided colorectal resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is an increased risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) in the remnant colorectum after surgical resection of CRC. We evaluated the incidence of metachronous advanced neoplasia (AN) after surgery for CRC according to resection type and synchronous AN.

METHODS

This cohort study included patients who underwent surgical resection for initial CRC at a tertiary cancer center in Japan between September 2002 and December 2012. The cumulative probability of metachronous AN was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and was evaluated by the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Metachronous AN was detected in 145 of 1731 included patients, and the 5-year cumulative probability of metachronous AN was 13.1%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of metachronous AN in the right-sided colorectal resection versus left-sided colorectal resection (LCR) groups (log-rank test P = .151), whereas the incidence of metachronous AN was significantly higher in patients with synchronous AN (log-rank test P < .001). In subgroup analysis of patients according to resection type and synchronous AN, the LCR group with synchronous AN showed a significantly higher incidence of metachronous AN than the other groups (log-rank test P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that synchronous AN, but not resection type, was independently associated with the incidence of metachronous AN in patients who underwent surgical resection of CRC. In addition, subjects with synchronous AN after LCR had a potentially increased risk for metachronous AN. Thus, it may be useful to perform risk stratification according to synchronous AN and resection type.

Family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives and metachronous colorectal adenoma

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the relationship between having a first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) and risk for metachronous colorectal adenoma (CRA) following polypectomy.

METHODS

We pooled data from seven prospective studies of 7697 patients with previously resected CRAs to quantify the relationship between having a FDR with CRC and risk for metachronous adenoma.

RESULTS

Compared with having no family history of CRC, a positive family history in any FDR was significantly associated with increased odds of developing any metachronous CRA (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.01-1.29). Higher odds of CRA were observed among individuals with an affected mother (OR = 1.27; 95% CI = 1.05-1.53) or sibling (OR = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.11-1.62) as compared with those without, whereas no association was shown for individuals with an affected father. Odds of having a metachronous CRA increased with number of affected FDRs, with ORs (95% CIs) of 1.07 (0.93-1.23) for one relative and 1.39 (1.02-1.91) for two or more. Younger age of diagnosis of a sibling was associated with higher odds of metachronous CRA, with ORs (95% CIs) of 1.66 (1.08-2.56) for diagnosis at <54 years; 1.34 (0.89-2.03) for 55-64 years; and 1.10 (0.70-1.72) for >65 years (p-trend = 0.008). Although limited by sample size, results for advanced metachronous CRA were similar to those for any metachronous CRA.

CONCLUSIONS

A family history of CRC is related to a modestly increased odds of metachronous CRA. Future research should explore whether having a FDR with CRC, particularly at a young age, should have a role in risk stratification for surveillance colonoscopy.

Risk Factors and Patient Care in Post-Polypectomy Surveillance Colonoscopy

This paper highlights the potential importance of family history as an independent risk factor in those with a personal history of adenomas. It also raises important questions for future study about maternal versus paternal risk in CRC. However, we should be cautious about making changes to practice based on these data alone. In the future, such data could be used to generate individualized recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance to ensure that we deliver the right care to the right patient at the right time.

Association of Colonoscopy Adenoma Findings With Long-term Colorectal Cancer Incidence

IMPORTANCE

Individuals with adenomatous polyps are advised to undergo repeated colonoscopy surveillance to prevent subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC), but the relationship between adenomas at colonoscopy and long-term CRC incidence is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term CRC incidence by colonoscopy adenoma findings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, prospective cohort study of participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer randomized clinical trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) beginning in 1993 with follow-up for CRC incidence to 2013 across the United States. Participants included 154 900 men and women aged 55 to 74 years enrolled in PLCO of whom 15 935 underwent colonoscopy following their first positive FSG screening result. The final day of follow-up was December 31, 2013.

EXPOSURES

Enrolled participants had been randomized to FSG or usual care. Participants who underwent FSG and had abnormal findings were referred for follow-up. Subsequent colonoscopy findings were categorized as advanced adenoma (≥1 cm, high-grade dysplasia, or tubulovillous or villous histology), nonadvanced adenoma (<1 cm without advanced histology), or no adenoma.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was CRC incidence within 15 years of the baseline colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was CRC mortality.

RESULTS

There were 15 935 participants who underwent colonoscopy (men, 59.7%; white, 90.7%; median age, 64 y [IQR, 61-68]). On initial colonoscopy, 2882 participants (18.1%) had an advanced adenoma, 5068 participants (31.8%) had a nonadvanced adenoma, and 7985 participants (50.1%) had no adenoma; median follow-up for CRC incidence was 12.9 years. CRC incidence rates per 10 000 person-years of observation were 20.0 (95% CI, 15.3-24.7; n = 70) for advanced adenoma, 9.1 (95% CI, 6.7-11.5; n = 55) for nonadvanced adenoma, and 7.5 (95% CI, 5.8-9.7; n = 71) for no adenoma. Participants with advanced adenoma were significantly more likely to develop CRC compared with participants with no adenoma (rate ratio [RR], 2.7 [95% CI, 1.9-3.7]; P < .001). There was no significant difference in CRC risk between participants with nonadvanced adenoma compared with no adenoma (RR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.8-1.7]; P = .30). Compared with participants with no adenoma, those with advanced adenoma were at significantly increased risk of CRC death (RR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.2-5.7], P = .01), but mortality risk in participants with nonadvanced adenoma was not significantly different (RR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.5-2.7], P = .68).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Over a median of 13 years of follow-up, participants with an advanced adenoma at diagnostic colonoscopy prompted by a positive flexible sigmoidoscopy result were at significantly increased risk of developing colorectal cancer compared with those with no adenoma. Identification of nonadvanced adenoma may not be associated with increased colorectal cancer risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.

Optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period for the adenoma patients who had an adequate polypectomy at baseline colonoscopy

The role of surveillance colonoscopy has long been established: it reduces both the incidence and the mortality of colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period for the adenoma patients who underwent an adequate polypectomy at baseline colonoscopy to avoid overuse or underuse of colonoscopy. A retrospective study was carried out on the baseline adenoma patients who had had at least two completed colonoscopy examinations during the years 2000-2013 in the Digestive Endoscopy Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University. All the patients had a complete polypectomy of adenomas at baseline. Data on the patients' demographics and colorectal findings were extracted from a specially designed colonoscopy database. The end point was the finding of adenoma during the subsequent surveillance colonoscopy; an analysis was carried out to identify recurrence factors and the optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period. A total of 765 (463 men, 302 women, average age 56.51±11.95) eligible patients were included in the study. Three hundred and twelve patients had adenoma and 453 had no adenoma after surveillance colonoscopies (the frequency of repeat colonoscopy is 1-10, average 1.73±1.24). The diameter of adenomas found on the follow-up colonoscopy was 0.2-3.0 cm (average 0.54±0.30 cm). The number of adenomas was 1-11 (2.21±1.53) and the surveillance adenoma interval period was 0.5-13 years (2.64±2.36 years). A total of 576 patients had baseline nonadvanced adenomas. Male sex, age older than 50 years, and more than two different intestine segment adenomas were the risk factors for recurrence. The optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period is 2.85 years (95% confidence interval: 2.53-3.17) according to the recurrence rate of 5% adenomas. One hundred and eighty-nine patients had baseline advanced adenomas. Male sex, diameter of adenomas less than 1.0 cm, and adenomas in the right colon or the whole colon were the risk factors for recurrence. The optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period is 2.06 years (95% confidence interval: 1.71-2.45) according to the recurrence rate of 5% adenomas. The optimal colonoscopy surveillance interval period is 3 years or so for the adenoma patients who had an adequate polypectomy at baseline colonoscopy. Male sex, age older than 50 years, less than 1.0 cm adenomas diameter and the right colon, or multisegment intestine adenomas were the risk factors for recurrence. This has significance for guiding the follow-up colonoscopy interval time of the patients with intestine adenomas.

Patterns and predictors of adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations in Alberta's Tomorrow Project participants stratified by risk

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an important modifiable behaviour for cancer control. Regular screening, following recommendations for the type, timing and frequency based on personal CRC risk, contributes to earlier detection and increases likelihood of successful treatment.

Methods

To determine adherence to screening recommendations in a large provincial cohort of adults, participants in Alberta’s Tomorrow Project (n = 9641) were stratified based on increasing level of CRC risk: age (Age-only), family history of CRC (FamilyHx), personal history of bowel conditions (PersonalHx), or both (Family/PersonalHx) using self-reported information from questionnaires. Provincial and national guidelines for timing and frequency of screening tests were used to determine if participants were up-to-date based on their CRC risk. Screening status was compared between enrollment (2000–2006) and follow-up (2008) to determine screening pattern over time.

Results

The majority of participants (77%) fell into the average risk Age-only strata. Only a third of this strata were up-to-date for screening at baseline, but the proportion increased across the higher risk strata, with > 90% of the highest risk Family/PersonalHx strata up-to-date at baseline. There was also a lower proportion (< 25%) of the Age-only group who were regular screeners over time compared to the higher risk strata, though age, higher income and uptake of other screening tests (e.g. mammography) were associated with a greater likelihood of regular screening in multinomial logistic regression.

Conclusions

The low (< 50%) adherence to regular CRC screening in average and moderate risk strata highlights the need to further explore barriers to uptake of screening across different risk profiles.

Adenoma and Polyp Detection Rates in Colonoscopy according to Indication

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated quality measure for screening colonoscopy, but there are little data for other indications. The distribution of adenomas is not well described for these indications.

Aim

To describe ADR and the adenoma distribution in the proximal and distal colon based on colonoscopy indication.

Methods

Outpatient colonoscopies are subdivided by indication. PDR and ADR for the entire colon and for proximal and distal colon. Data were compared using generalized estimating equations to adjust for clustering amongst endoscopists while controlling for patient age and gender.

Results

3436 colonoscopies were reviewed (51.2%: men (n = 1759)). Indications are screening 49.2%, surveillance 29.3%, change in bowel habit 8.4%, bleeding 5.8%, colitides 3.0%, pain 2.8%, and miscellaneous 1.5%. Overall ADR was 37% proximal ADR 28%, and distal ADR 17%. PDR and ADR were significantly higher in surveillance than in screening (PDR: 69% versus 51%; ADR: 50% versus 33%; p = 0.0001). Adenomas were more often detected in the proximal than in the distal colon, for all indications.

Conclusions

Prevalence of polyps and adenomas differs based on colonoscopy indication. Adenoma detection is highest in surveillance and more commonly detected in the proximal colon. For quality assurance, distinct ADR and PDR targets may need to be established for different colonoscopy indications.

Virtual chromoendoscopy for the real-time assessment of colorectal polyps in vivo: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Current clinical practice is to remove a colorectal polyp detected during colonoscopy and determine whether it is an adenoma or hyperplastic by histopathology. Identifying adenomas is important because they may eventually become cancerous if untreated, whereas hyperplastic polyps do not usually develop into cancer, and a surveillance interval is set based on the number and size of adenomas found. Virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) (an electronic endoscopic imaging technique) could be used by the endoscopist under strictly controlled conditions for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VCE technologies narrow-band imaging (NBI), flexible spectral imaging colour enhancement (FICE) and i-scan for the characterisation and management of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps using high-definition (HD) systems without magnification.

DESIGN

Systematic review and economic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

People undergoing colonoscopy for screening or surveillance or to investigate symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

NBI, FICE and i-scan.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnostic accuracy, recommended surveillance intervals, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects, incidence of colorectal cancer, mortality and cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published English-language studies from inception to June 2016. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company information were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of test accuracy and economic evaluations were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, to inform the independent economic model. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology. The model used a decision tree for patients undergoing endoscopy, combined with estimates of long-term outcomes (e.g. incidence of colorectal cancer and subsequent morbidity and mortality) derived from University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research's bowel cancer screening model. The model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% over a lifetime horizon. There were limitations in the data on the distribution of adenomas across risk categories and recurrence rates post polypectomy.

RESULTS

Thirty test accuracy studies were included: 24 for NBI, five for i-scan and three for FICE (two studies assessed two interventions). Polyp assessments made with high confidence were associated with higher sensitivity and endoscopists experienced in VCE achieved better results than those without experience. Two economic evaluations were included. NBI, i-scan and FICE are cost-saving strategies compared with histopathology and the number of quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar for histopathology and VCE. The correct surveillance interval would be given to 95% of patients with NBI, 94% of patients with FICE and 97% of patients with i-scan.

LIMITATIONS

Limited evidence was available for i-scan and FICE and there was heterogeneity among the NBI studies. There is a lack of data on longer-term health outcomes of patients undergoing VCE for assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

VCE technologies, using HD systems without magnification, could potentially be used for the real-time assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps, if endoscopists have adequate experience and training.

FUTURE WORK

Future research priorities include head-to-head randomised controlled trials of all three VCE technologies; more research on the diagnostic accuracy of FICE and i-scan (when used without magnification); further studies evaluating the impact of endoscopist experience and training on outcomes; studies measuring adverse effects, HRQoL and anxiety; and longitudinal data on colorectal cancer incidence, HRQoL and mortality.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037767.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Risk of Advanced Adenoma, Colorectal Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer Mortality in People With Low-Risk Adenomas at Baseline Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of advanced adenomas (AAs), colorectal cancer (CRC), and/or CRC-related death among individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published between January 2006 and July 2015. Quality and strength of the evidence were rated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the GRADE framework, respectively.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies (n=64,317) were included. A meta-analysis of eight cohort studies (n=10,139, 3 to 10 years' follow-up) showed a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of AAs in individuals with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy (RR 1.55 (95% CI 1.24-1.94); P=0.0001; I²=0%). The pooled 5-year cumulative incidence of AA was 3.28% (95% CI: 1.85-5.10%), 4.9% (95% CI: 3.18-6.97%), and 17.13% (95% CI: 11.97-23.0%) for the no adenoma, LRA, and AA baseline groups, respectively. Two studies, which could not be pooled, showed a reduction in the risk of CRC in individuals with LRAs compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.44-0.99) at a median follow-up of 7.7 years and OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-0.6) at 3-5 years). One large retrospective cohort study found a 25% reduction in CRC mortality in individuals with LRAs compared with the general population (SMR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63-0.88) at a median follow-up of 7.7 years).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a small but significant increase in the risk of AAs in people with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy, but compared with the general population, people with LRAs have significantly lower risks of CRC and of CRC-related mortality.