Adenoma size and number are predictive of adenoma recurrence: implications for surveillance colonoscopy

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.

Metachronous Colorectal Adenomas Occur Close to the Index Lesion

GOALS

The aim of this study is to assess the spatial relationship between index and metachronous colorectal adenoma location.

BACKGROUND

After the complete excision of a human sporadic colorectal adenoma, patients are at elevated risk of developing a further metachronous adenoma. Data regarding the occurrence site of a metachronous colorectal adenoma relative to the index adenoma are scarce.

STUDY

Prospectively maintained databases were interrogated to identify all colonoscopies and adenoma excisions performed over a 10-year period at a single university teaching hospital. Data for the colonic segments at which adenoma removal were reported at index and all subsequent colonoscopies were extracted and 2 allied data sets merged.

RESULTS

A total of 15,121 colonoscopies and 4759 polyp events were recorded. Four hundred fifty-two patients [296 male, 156 female, median (range) age 75 (32 to 100) y] developed at least 1 metachronous adenoma at follow-up colonoscopy. When single index events only are considered (ie, synchronous adenoma cases excluded), over 61% of metachronous adenomas were recorded in the same or an adjacent colonic segment. When the full span of the colon is considered, metachronous adenomas were more likely to occur in a section of the colon proximal to that of the index adenoma (41%±5%) than the same (39%±5%) or distal segment (20%±5%; P =0.006; 1-way χ 2 test).

CONCLUSIONS

A metachronous human sporadic colorectal adenoma is more likely to be found in the same colonic segment to that of the index adenoma or 1 immediately adjacent. These data suggest a shared origin of metachronous adenoma with preceding lesions, supporting the existence of precancerous fields.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors related to polyposis recurrence and advanced neoplasm development among patients with non-hereditary colorectal polyposis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Patients with more than 10 cumulative polyps might involve a greater genetic risk of colorectal neoplasia development. However, few studies have investigated the risk factors of polyposis recurrence and development of advanced neoplasms among patients with non-hereditary colorectal polyposis.

METHODS

This study included patients (n=855) with 10 or more cumulative polyps diagnosed at Severance Hospital from January 2012 to September 2021. Patients with known genetic mutations related to polyposis, known hereditary polyposis syndromes, insufficient information, total colectomy, and less than 3 years of follow-up were excluded. Finally, 169 patients were included for analysis. We collected clinical data, including colonoscopy surveillance results, and performed Cox regression analyses of risk factors for polyposis recurrence and advanced neoplasm development.

RESULTS

The 169 patients were predominantly male (84.02%), with a mean age of 64.19±9.92 years. The mean number of adenomas on index colonoscopy was 15.33±8.47. Multivariable analysis revealed history of cancer except colon cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-4.01), current smoking (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.17-4.87), and detection of many polyps (≥15) on index colonoscopy (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.21-3.50) were significant risk factors for recurrence of polyposis. We found no statistically significant risk factors for advanced neoplasm development during surveillance among our cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of many polyps (≥15) on index colonoscopy, history of cancer except colon cancer, and current smoking state were significant risk factors for polyposis recurrence among patients with non-hereditary colorectal polyposis.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs).

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs.

CONCLUSION

Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term.

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.

Ball Valve Syndrome is caused by Colon Polyp

BACKGROUND: Intestinal obstruction caused by ball valve syndrome, is a potentially lethal pathology. This case report will show ball valve syndrome in the large intestine (mechanical obstruction) and endoscopic treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: Our patient presented with abdominal pain and with intestinal obstruction-ileus. After colonoscopic examination was noticed, a large precancerous pedunculated polyp obstructed of large intestine due to ball valve effect. Mechanical obstruction was removed with endoscopic polypectomy. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic polypectomy must first be performed and if does not succeed, then indicated surgical interventions.

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 the management of advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of 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 to 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 to 5 (or more) SSLs. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients 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.

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.

Risk Factors for Colorectal Polyps and Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common malignancy in the U.S. and worldwide. Most CRC cases arise from precancerous adenomatous and serrated polyps. Established risk factors for conventional adenomas and CRC include age, male sex, family history, obesity and physical inactivity, and red meat intake. White race and tobacco and alcohol use are important risk factors for serrated polyps, which have a distinct risk factor profile compared to conventional adenomas. A history of abdominopelvic radiation, acromegaly, hereditary hemochromatosis, or prior ureterosigmoidostomy also increases CRC risk. Understanding these risk factors allows for targeted screening of high-risk groups to reduce CRC incidence.

Establishment and Verification of Scoring System for Colorectal Adenoma Recurrence

Objective

The purpose of this study was to establish and verify a risk-scoring system for colorectal adenoma recurrence.

Methods

A total of 359 patients with colorectal adenoma who underwent polypectomy from October 2017 to December 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Information including taking traditional Chinese medicine, demographic characteristics, adenoma characteristics were collected. The patients will review the colonoscopy one year after surgery. The patients were divided into a modeling cohort (216 cases) and a model validation cohort (143 cases) according to the ratio of 6:4. Modeling and model verification were performed by logistic regression, ROC curve, nomogram (calibration chart) and other methods.

Results

After adjusting for confounding factors by logistic regression, it was found that taking Chinese medicine, the number, size, site, pathological type and morphology of adenoma were independent influencing factors for the recurrence of colorectal adenoma. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) in the model validation cohort of established risk scoring system was 0.771 (95% CI: 0.694–0.847), indicating that there was good consistency.

Conclusion

The established risk prediction model of colorectal adenoma recurrence and its risk scoring system performed well and had high predictive value.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Detection and Characterization of Colorectal Neoplasm

Endoscpists always have tried to pursue a perfect colonoscopy, and application of artificial intelligence (AI) using deep-learning algorithms is one of the promising supportive options for detection and characterization of colorectal polyps during colonoscopy. Many retrospective studies conducted with real-time application of AI using convolutional neural networks have shown improved colorectal polyp detection. Moreover, a recent randomized clinical trial reported additional polyp detection with shorter analysis time. Studies conducted regarding polyp characterization provided additional promising results. Application of AI with narrow band imaging in real-time prediction of the pathology of diminutive polyps resulted in high diagnostic accuracy. In addition, application of AI with endocytoscopy or confocal laser endomicroscopy was investigated for real-time cellular diagnosis, and the diagnostic accuracy of some studies was comparable to that of pathologists. With AI technology, we can expect a higher polyp detection rate with reduced time and cost by avoiding unnecessary procedures, resulting in enhanced colonoscopy efficiency. However, for AI application in actual daily clinical practice, more prospective studies with minimized selection bias, consensus on standardized utilization, and regulatory approval are needed. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-353)

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines

The Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines were developed by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society as basic guidelines based on the scientific methods. The importance of endoscopic screening and surveillance for both detection and post-treatment follow-up of colorectal cancer has been recognized as essential to reduce disease mortality. There is limited high-level evidence in this field; therefore, we had to focus on the consensus of experts. These clinical practice guidelines consist of 20 clinical questions and eight background knowledge topics that have been determined as the current guiding principles.

Heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence among people recommended 3-yearly surveillance post-polypectomy: a validation study

BACKGROUND

 Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) following adenoma removal. Low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups are defined by baseline adenoma characteristics. We previously examined intermediate-risk patients from hospital data and identified a higher-risk subgroup who benefited from surveillance and a lower-risk subgroup who may not require surveillance. This study explored whether these findings apply in individuals undergoing CRC screening.

METHODS

 This retrospective study used data from the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST), English CRC screening pilot (ECP), and US Kaiser Permanente CRC prevention program (KPCP). Screening participants (50 - 74 years) classified as intermediate-risk at baseline colonoscopy were included. CRC data were available through 2006 (KPCP) or 2014 (UKFSST, ECP). Lower- and higher-risk subgroups were defined using our previously identified baseline risk factors: higher-risk participants had incomplete colonoscopies, poor bowel preparation, adenomas ≥ 20 mm or with high-grade dysplasia, or proximal polyps. We compared CRC incidence in these subgroups and in the presence vs. absence of surveillance using Cox regression.

RESULTS

 Of 2291 intermediate-risk participants, 45 % were classified as higher risk. Median follow-up was 11.8 years. CRC incidence was higher in the higher-risk than lower-risk subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.07 - 4.06). Surveillance reduced CRC incidence in higher-risk participants (HR 0.35, 95 %CI 0.14 - 0.86) but not statistically significantly so in lower-risk participants (HR 0.41, 95 %CI 0.12 - 1.38).

CONCLUSION

 As previously demonstrated for hospital patients, screening participants classified as intermediate risk comprised two risk subgroups. Surveillance clearly benefited the higher-risk subgroup.

≥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.

Serum Levels of BDNF in Patients with Adenoma and Colorectal Cancer

The present study is aimed at examining the serum levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and investigating its role in differential diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Materials and Methods. In a Chinese population, we conducted a case-control study to compare the diagnostic performance of serum levels of BDNF and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for CRC. We enrolled 61 healthy controls, 31 patients with adenomas, and 81 patients with CRC. We explored the correlation between serum levels of BDNF and several pathological features, such as tumor differentiation and TNM staging. Results. The serum levels of BDNF were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher in patients with CRC (10.64 ± 3.84, n = 81) than in the healthy controls (4.69 ± 1.69 ng/mL, n = 61). Serum BDNF also correlated with tumor size, tumor differentiation, and TNM staging (p < 0.05). For early diagnosis, the combination of BDNF (AUC 0.719; 95% CI, 0.621–0.816) and CEA (AUC 0.733; 95% CI, 0.632–0.909) slightly improved the diagnostic performance for CRC (AUC 0.823; 95% CI, 0.737-0.909). Conclusions. Combined detection of serum BDNF and CEA may thus have the potential to become a new laboratory method for the early clinical diagnosis of CRC.

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.

Association Between Age and Complications After Outpatient Colonoscopy

IMPORTANCE

There are insufficient data describing the incidence and risk factors of postcolonoscopy complications in older individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between older age (≥75 years) and the risk of postcolonoscopy complications.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based retrospective cohort study included adults (≥50 years) undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017, identified from Ontario administrative databases. Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. The study population was subdivided into a colorectal cancer screening-eligible cohort (patients aged 50-74 years) and an older cohort (patients aged ≥75 years). The statistical analysis was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019.

EXPOSURES

Older age (≥75 years).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy complications, defined as the composite of hospitalization or emergency department visits in the 30-day period after the outpatient colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Independent variables associated with postcolonoscopy complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

The study sample included 38 069 patients; the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10.1) years, there were 19 037 women (50.0%), and 27 831 patients (73.1%) underwent a first colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence of complications was 3.4% (1310 patients) in the overall population, and it was higher in individuals aged 75 years or older (515 of 7627 patients [6.8%]) than in screening-eligible cohort (795 of 30 443 patients [2.6%]) (P < .001). Independent risk factors for postcolonoscopy complications were age 75 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.6), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), and obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2). The number of previous colonoscopies was associated with a lower risk of complications (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0). The incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer was higher in the older cohort than the screening-eligible cohort (119 patients [1.6%] vs 144 patients [0.5%]; P < .001). All-cause mortality rates were 0.1% overall (39 patients) and 0.1% (19 patients) for individuals aged 50 to 74 years and 0.2% (20 patients) for those aged 75 years and older (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this population-based cohort study of individuals living in southern Ontario, age of 75 years and older was associated with a higher risk of 30-day postprocedure complications after outpatient colonoscopy. These findings suggest that the decision to perform a colonoscopy should be carefully considered in patients older than 75 years, especially in the presence of comorbidities. Further studies are needed to better understand the benefits of invasive procedures as opposed to less invasive approaches for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance among older patients.

Faecal haemoglobin can define risk of colorectal neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer

Background

Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests measure faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), which increases in the presence of colorectal neoplasia.

Objective

We examined the diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test (FIT)in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) attending for surveillance colonoscopy as per national guidelines.

Methods

A total of 1103 consecutive patients were prospectively invited to complete a FIT before their scheduled colonoscopy in two university hospitals in 2014– 2016. F-Hb was analysed on an OC-Sensor io automated analyser (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) with a limit of detection of 2 µg Hb/g faeces. The diagnostic accuracy of f-Hb for CRC and higher-risk adenoma was examined.

Results

A total of 643 patients returned a faecal test. After excluding 4 patients with known inflammatory bowel disease, 639 (57.9%) remained in the study: age range: 25–90 years (median: 64 years, interquartile range (IQR): 55–71): 54.6% male. Of 593 patients who also completed colonoscopy, 41 (6.9%) had advanced neoplasia (4 CRC, 37 higher-risk adenoma). Of the 238 patients (40.1%) who had detectable f-Hb, 31 (13.0%) had advanced neoplasia (2 CRC, 29 higher-risk adenoma) compared with 10 (2.8%) in those with undetectable f-Hb (2 CRC, 8 higher-risk adenoma). Detectable f-Hb gave negative predictive values of 99.4% for CRC and 97.2% for CRC plus higher-risk adenoma.

Conclusion

In patients at increased risk of CRC under colonoscopy surveillance, a test measuring faecal haemoglobin can provide an objective estimate of the risk of advanced neoplasia, and could enable tailored scheduling of 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.

Yield and Practice Patterns of Surveillance Colonoscopy Among Older Adults: An Analysis of the GI Quality Improvement Consortium

OBJECTIVES

There is little guidance regarding when to stop surveillance colonoscopy in individuals with a history of adenomas or colorectal cancer (CRC). We evaluated both yield and recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy in a large cohort of older individuals undergoing colonoscopy, using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry.

METHODS

We analyzed the yield of colonoscopy in adults aged ≥75 years, comparing those who had an indication of surveillance as opposed to an indication of diagnostic or screening, stratified by 5-year age groups. Our primary outcome was CRC and advanced lesions. We also evaluated recommended follow-up intervals by age and findings.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2017, 376,686 colonoscopies were performed by 3,976 endoscopists at 628 sites, of which 43.2% were for surveillance. Detection of CRC among surveillance patients increased with age from 0.51% (age 75-79 years) to 1.8% (age ≥ 90 years); however, these risks were lower when compared with both the diagnostic and screening for the same age band (P < 0.0001). Yield of advanced lesions also increased by every 5-year interval of age across all groups by indication. Even at the most advanced ages and in those with nonadvanced findings, only a minority of patients were recommended for no further colonoscopy. For example, in patients aged 90 years and older with only low risk findings, 62.9% were recommended to repeat colonoscopy.

DISCUSSION

Surveillance colonoscopy is frequently recommended at advanced ages even when recent findings may be clinically insignificant. Further work is needed to develop guidelines to inform best practice around when to stop surveillance in older adults.

High Prevalence of Adenomatous Polyps in Alaska Native People Aged 40-49 years

BACKGROUND

Although colorectal cancer occurs earlier in life and at twice the frequency in Alaska Native (AN) people compared with the general population, the colorectal polyp burden in this group has not been quantified. In addition, an appropriate age for initial screening in ANs has not been defined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 766 AN people who had screening colonoscopy from 2015 to 2016 was performed. The polyp burden in patients aged 40-49 y was compared with that in those aged 50-59 y in both the AN and the general US populations.

RESULTS

In total, 345 adenomas were removed: 121 (35%) from 40- to 49-year-olds and 224 (65%) from 50- to 59-year-olds. Twenty-six percent of AN people aged 40 y to 49 y and 40% of AN people aged 50 to 59 y had at least one adenoma. Low- and high-risk adenomas were significantly less frequent in the younger group (22% versus 29%, P = 0.048; 9.2% versus 15%, P = 0.035; respectively). Advanced adenomas were also less frequent in the younger group, although not statistically significant. Polyp histology, size, location, and morphology did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The adenoma and advanced adenoma prevalence in 40- to 49-year-old AN people is high, suggesting colorectal cancer screening should begin at age 40 y in ANs.

Outcome of endoscopic resection of colonic polyps larger than 10 mm in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background and study aims  There are limited published data on endoscopic removal of colorectal polyps by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective review of patients with colonic IBD and colonic polyps >10mm who underwent EMR and/or ESD at our institution between January 1, 2012 and June 31, 2016. Results  Ninety-seven patients with pathology-confirmed IBD (median disease duration 16 years) were included. Mild or moderate active colitis (in background biopsies) was seen in 85 %. Of the total 124 polyps, location was ascending colon in 44 %, transverse in 15 % and sigmoid in 18.5 %; of the total, 55 % were < 20 mm and 45 % were ≥20mm in maximal diameter. Using the Paris classification, 56 % of polyps were polypoid sessile (Is) polyps, while 38 % were non-polypoid (IIa, IIb, IIc). EMR was used in 118 polyps, three required ESD, and three by combined EMR-ESD. Seventy-two percent were resected en-bloc; 28 % underwent piecemeal resection. Histology included low-grade dysplasia in 75, serrated adenoma in 31, and tubular adenoma in 14 polyps. Chromoendoscopy was used in 33 (26.6 %). Adverse events occurred in three patients. Colectomy was performed in 11 patients within 12 months. Recurrence was seen in 20 polyps, 11 of which were successfully resected en-bloc using EMR. Polyps ≥ 20 mm and polyps treated with APC were found to have a statistically significantly higher risk of recurrence. Conclusion  This study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large polyps in patients with IBD, making them effective alternatives to colectomy.

The significance of the small adenoma: a longitudinal study of surveillance colonoscopy in an Australian population

BACKGROUND

The international guidelines for surveillance following the finding of a small tubular adenoma vary between no surveillance or colonoscopy at 5 or 10 years, whereas surveillance after an advanced adenoma is 3 years. Optimization of surveillance reduces the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) with efficient use of colonoscopy resources. We assessed the risks of advanced colorectal neoplasia following a baseline finding of a small adenoma compared with advanced adenoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective audit was undertaken of patients enrolled in a CRC surveillance program, wherein regular colonoscopies and screening with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) were provided. Patients diagnosed with either small or advanced adenoma followed by at least one surveillance colonoscopy were included. Advanced adenoma included adenomas with features of villous change, size of at least 10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, three or more small tubular adenomas and traditional and sessile serrated adenomas. Subdistribution hazard ratios were calculated for advanced neoplasia (CRC or advanced adenoma).

RESULTS

Overall, 378 patients (62.6±11.2 years, 57.9% male) were included, with 44.2% diagnosed with small adenoma and 55.5% with advanced adenoma at baseline. The crude cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia at first surveillance was 13.2 and 18.5% after small and advanced adenoma (P=0.16) (at 45.9 and 35.6 months, respectively), which became significant for advanced adenoma after adjustment (subdistribution hazard ratio=2.55, 95% confidence interval=1.49-4.35, P<001). A positive FIT was the only independent predictor of advanced neoplasia after a small adenoma at baseline colonoscopy (odds ratio=5.05, 95% confidence interval=1.27-20.02, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of advanced neoplasia following a small adenoma was lower than that following an advanced adenoma, but was strongly predicted by a positive FIT. Reducing frequency of colonoscopy while providing regular FIT might be a more efficient use of resources for this population.

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.

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.

Resting heart rate is an independent predictor of advanced colorectal adenoma recurrence

Background and aim

High heart rate is an independent predictor of total cancer incidence and all-cause mortality in patients with cancer. We aimed to evaluate the impact of resting heart rate on the recurrence of colorectal polyp, using long-term surveillance follow-up data of colorectal cancer survivors.

Methods

Three hundred patients were selected from the colorectal cancer survivor cohort of Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Resting heart rate, physical activity, and body composition analysis at the time of 5-year survival, and clinical data including colonoscopy surveillance results were collected for mean follow-up duration of 8 years.

Results

Patients with a high resting heart rate showed a significantly higher recurrence rate of advanced adenoma than those with a low resting heart rate (quartile 1, 45–66 beats per minute (b.p.m.); quartile 2, 67–73 b.p.m.; quartile 3, 74–80 b.p.m.; quartile 4, 81–120 b.p.m.; 3.8% vs. 7.9% vs. 10.0% vs. 14.7%, p for trend = 0.018). After adjustment for various risk factors, patients in the highest quartile of resting heart rate (≥ 81 b.p.m.) had a significantly higher risk of advanced adenoma recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.183, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.181–32.373, p = 0.031), compared to those in the lowest quartile (≤ 66 b.p.m.). In subgroup analysis, the association of resting heart rate with advanced adenoma recurrence appeared to be stronger among patients who had more than normal body fat mass or sedentary life style.

Conclusions

Elevated resting heart rate was independently associated with a higher rate of advanced adenoma recurrence in colorectal cancer survivors.

Adenoma detection rate influences the risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in low-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In individuals with either no or 1 to 2 nonadvanced adenomas, future risks of advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) vary according to clinical risk factors. However, little is known about the association between the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and the risk for metachronous AN in patients with low-risk adenomas.

METHODS

We identified 7171 participants with no or 1 to 2 nonadvanced adenomas at first-time screening colonoscopy. The risk of metachronous AN was investigated at surveillance colonoscopy, according to clinical characteristics and the ADR.

RESULTS

In multivariate analysis the risk for metachronous AN was strongly associated with increasing age, male sex, increasing number of adenomas, and the ADR of the endoscopist. With the ADR modeled as a continuous variable, each 1.0% increase in the rate of ADR predicted a 3.0% decrease in the risk of metachronous AN (adjusted odds ratio [OR], .97; 95% confidence interval [CI], .95-.99). With the ADR modeled using a binary cut-off (32%), the risk of metachronous AN was reduced in patients of endoscopists with an ADR ≥32% (adjusted OR, .53; 95% CI, .35-.83). Moreover, the risk of metachronous AN was reduced (adjusted OR, .66; 95% CI, .46-.95) in patients of endoscopists with an ADR in the highest tertile, compared with patients of endoscopists with ADRs in the lowest tertile. The impact of ADR on metachronous AN was significant for patients with low-risk adenomas rather than patients with no adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with low-risk adenomas, the ADR of the endoscopist was inversely associated with the risk of metachronous AN.

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.

Role of baseline adenoma characteristics for adenoma recurrencein patients with high-risk adenoma

Background/aim: The present observational study aimed to determine the predictive value of 3-year recurrence adenoma characteristics at baseline conventional colonoscopy in patients with high-risk adenoma.Materials and methods: A total of 47 patients with high-risk adenoma at baseline colonoscopy were followed up and underwent a surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Correlations between adenoma recurrence and baseline adenoma characteristics (size, number, histological features, and location) were analyzed.Results: Among 135 patients with high-risk adenoma, 47 patients (35%) who underwent surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years following baseline colonoscopy were included in the study. In these 47 patients, at least one new adenoma was detected in 19 (40.4%) patients, and new advanced adenomas were detected in 5 (10.6%) patients during the surveillance colonoscopy. No significant difference was found in patients who had adenoma recurrence versus those who did not in terms of size of adenomas (P = 0.143), number of adenomas (P = 0.562), histological properties of adenomas (P = 0.658), or locations of adenomas (P = 0.567).Conclusion: Baseline adenoma characteristics were not associated with the recurrence of adenomas or advanced adenomas in patients with high-risk adenoma.

The Detection of Proximal Colon Polyps and Its Importance in Screening Colonoscopy

Background: Colon polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer (CRC), therefore their endoscopic detection is very important. A shift of in the localization of colorectal polyps toward the proximal colon has been recently observed in Western countries.

Aim: The aim of this paper was to establish the most important clinical and endoscopic aspects of right colon polyps and to correlate them with their histopathological types, with an emphasis on sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps).

Material and method: We perfomed a retrospective study on a series of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy in the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit of the County Emergency Clinical Hospital of Tîrgu Mureș between January 1, 2010 – December 31, 2014, comparing the results with those of patients who underwent colonoscopy between January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2009. In all cases with abnormal aspects at endoscopy, multiple biopsies were taken for histopathological examination. Only cases where the diagnosis of colon polyp was confirmed by the Histopathology Department were included in the study.

Results: In the 2010–2014 period there were 871 patients diagnosed with colon polyps (1,038 polyps), with a mean age of 62.28 years. The most frequent histopathological form was tubular adenoma in 55.97% of cases (n = 581). SSA/Ps were found in 66 patients (75 polyps). Considering all polyps, the most frequent localization was in the sigmoid colon in 32.36% of cases (n = 336), but for SSA/Ps the most common localization was the ascending colon in 24% of cases (n = 18), followed by the sigmoid colon in 21.33% of cases (n = 16). Compared with patients investigated between 2005 and 2009, we found an increasing localization in the right colon, from 10.43% (n = 67) in 2005–2009 to 15.41% (n = 160) in 2010–2014. SSA/Ps were found in the right colon in 5.97% of cases (n = 4) in the first period compared with 11.25% of cases (n = 18) in the second period.

Conclusions: In the last years we found an increasing localization of colon polyps in the right colon. These findings underscore the importance of high quality colonoscopy to maximize protection against colorectal cancer.

The Effects of Physical Activity and Body Fat Mass on Colorectal Polyp Recurrence in Patients with Previous Colorectal Cancer

We aimed to identify the effects of physical activity and body composition on colorectal polyp recurrence in patients with previous colorectal cancer. A total of 300 patients were selected randomly from the colorectal cancer survivor cohort of Severance Hospital (Seoul, Korea). Patients reported various recreational physical activities and received surveillance colonoscopy. Body composition was measured with a body composition analyzer. We compared patients who exercised for at least 1 hour/week (active) with those who exercised less frequently or not at all (sedentary). The active exercise group (n = 203) had a lower recurrence of advanced adenoma than the sedentary group (n = 97; 6.4% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.023). The prevalence of advanced adenoma recurrence decreased in an exercise dose-dependent manner (P_trend = 0.019). In multivariate logistic analysis, the independent factors associated with advanced polyp recurrence were body fat mass [OR, 7.601; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.583-36.485; P = 0.011] and active exercise (OR, 0.340; 95% CI, 0.143-0.809; P = 0.015). In Cox proportional hazards models, body fat mass (HR, 5.315; 95% CI, 1.173-24.083; P = 0.030) and active exercise (HR, 0.367; 95% CI, 0.162-0.833; P = 0.017) were the independent factors associated with cumulative advanced adenoma recurrence. In conclusion, exercising for at least 1 hour/week and low body fat mass were found to be related to lower rates of colorectal polyp recurrence in the surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors. Cancer Prev Res; 10(8); 478-84. ©2017 AACR.

Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence.

METHODS

We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649.

FINDINGS

253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6-11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31-0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06-1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29-0·84).

INTERPRETATION

Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.

Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations.

METHODS

We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.

Do surveillance intervals in patients with more than five adenomas at index colonoscopy be shorter than those in patients with three to four adenomas? A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is controversy about the surveillance interval after colonoscopy when 5-10 adenomas have been found on index colonoscopy. This study aimed to investigate the risk of colorectal neoplasm (CRN) according to the number of adenomas at index colonoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter study was conducted at 10 university hospitals in Korea. We included 1394 patients with ≥ 3 adenomas at index colonoscopy. The risk of advanced CRN was compared according to the number of adenomas (intermediate risk group, 3-4 small adenomas or at least one ≥ 10 mm, and high risk group, ≥ 5 small adenomas or ≥ 3 at least one ≥ 10 mm).

RESULTS

Overall, 164 (11.8%) developed an advanced CRN after a mean of 4.0 years from baseline colonoscopy. The 3-year and 5-year risk of advanced CRN was 2.1% (95% CI 2.09-2.11) and 14.4% (95% CI 14.36-14.44) in intermediate risk group and 3.2% (95% CI 3.19-3.21) and 23.3% (95% CI 19.15-19.25) in high risk group (P = 0.01). Having ≥ 5 adenomas (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.23, P = 0.01) detected at index colonoscopy was a significant risk factor for developing advanced CRN.

CONCLUSIONS

Although risk of advanced CRN in patients with 5-10 adenomas was significantly higher than that in patients with 3-4 adenomas, the cumulative risk at 3 years was low at 3.2%. Thus, we suggest that a 3-year surveillance interval might be appropriate for the patients with 5-10 adenomas, and further prospective studies are needed to investigate whether more intensive surveillance is needed in this group.

Risk of advanced colorectal neoplasm in patients with more than 10 adenomas on index colonoscopy: A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The number of patients with >10 adenomas is relatively small, and few studies have investigated the risk of colorectal neoplasm (CRN) in these patients. Thus, we aimed to investigate the risk of developing CRN in patients with >10 adenomas and to compare their risk with that of patients with 3-10 adenomas.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter cohort study that included 214 patients with >10 adenomas on index colonoscopy performed between January 2009 and December 2011, and underwent follow-up colonoscopy until December 2015 was conducted. The risk of developing advanced CRN (cancer or advanced adenoma with a diameter of ≥10 mm or with a villous component, or high-grade dysplasia) was investigated and compared with that in patients with 3-10 adenomas (n = 975).

RESULTS

Among the 214 patients with >10 adenomas, the mean age was 62.9 years and the mean number of adenomas on index colonoscopy was 14.2. Overall, 57 patients (26.6%) developed an advanced CRN after a mean of 4.3 years from baseline colonoscopy. The respective 3- and 5-year cumulative risks of advanced CRN were 6.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9-10.7) and 28.7% (95% CI 20.8-36.5), higher than those in the group with 3-10 adenomas (n = 975, P = 0.001). Having >10 adenomas on index colonoscopy was an independent risk factor for developing advanced CRN (odds ratio 2.25, 95% CI 1.49-3.38).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of developing advanced CRN in patients with >10 adenomas was high and statistically higher than that in patients with 3-10 adenomas. Further prospective studies are needed to investigate whether a more intensive surveillance is needed in this group.

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

The UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicentre cohort study.

SETTING

Routine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals (n = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts (n = 2352), followed up using cancer registries.

SUBJECTS

Patients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up.

METHODS

The effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost-utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups (n = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance.

RESULTS

In the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup (n = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup (n = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain.

CONCLUSIONS

A single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer or polyp: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify personal, lifestyle, and tumor-related risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyp.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register through 15 May 2016. Estimates for associations were summarized using random effects models.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were included in the review. For individuals who had a CRC resection, having a synchronous polyp was a risk factor for metachronous CRC or polyp (relative risk [RR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.82) and having a synchronous CRC (RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.25-2.91) and proximally located CRC (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.24-3.64) were risk factors for metachronous CRC. For individuals who had a polypectomy, larger size (RR, 4.26; 95% CI, 2.11-8.57) or severe dysplasia of the initial polyp (RR, 5.15; 95% CI, 2.02-13.14), and having a synchronous polyp (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.35-4.73) were risk factors for metachronous CRC; and a family history of CRC (RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.26-2.87), having a synchronous polyp (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.74-3.50) and a larger size (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.15) and proximal location of the initial polyp (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40) were risk factors for metachronous polyp. Meta-regression showed duration of follow-up was not a source of heterogeneity for most associations. There was no evidence that lifestyle factors were associated with metachronous CRC or polyp risk.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive list of risk factors identified for metachronous CRC or polyp may have important clinical implications.

Surveillance after colorectal polyp removal

Surveillance colonoscopy is aimed to reduce CRC incidence and mortality by removing adenomas and detecting CRC in early stage. However, colonoscopy is an invasive and expensive procedure and surveillance colonoscopy should be targeted at those who are most likely to benefit at the minimum frequency required to protect for cancer. Surveillance recommendations are based on guidelines, but the recommendations in those guidelines are based on moderate to low quality evidence and adherence to these guidelines is poor. As surveillance colonoscopy is one of the main indications for colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopies are filling colonoscopy lists, the current surveillance practice results in spending lots of money and capacity in a suboptimal way. Randomized controlled trials to compare surveillance intervals are not available. However, current evidence based on several case-control and cohort studies suggests there is no need for surveillance in patients with low-risk adenomas, i.e. 1-2 adenomas smaller than 10 mm. Patients with 3 or more adenomas or any adenoma larger than 10 mm seem to be the ones at real risk for metachronous adenomas or cancer. In those patients, surveillance colonoscopy is indicated at 3 years after baseline until ongoing studies will confirm the safety of enlarging this interval. Randomized controlled trials and experimental research are important in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence for the optimization of follow-up strategies for patients with adenomas and serrated polyps.

Prediction of the Risk of a Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasm Using a Novel Scoring System

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to develop and validate a risk score model to estimate the probability of a metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasm (ACRN) at surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively obtained database of 11,042 asymptomatic subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy after a screening colonoscopy was conducted. Subjects were randomly divided into derivation (n = 7730) and validation sets (n = 3312). From the derivation cohort, risk factors for a metachronous ACRN were identified by a multivariable analysis. Risk points were allocated to each risk factor based on the hazard ratio to develop the Metachronous Advanced colorectal neoplasm Prediction Scoring (MAPS) model, the performance of which was assessed in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort, age, male, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp, and a high-risk CRN (ACRN or ≥3 adenomas) at screening colonoscopy were independent risk factors for a metachronous ACRN. These variables were incorporated into the MAPS model, and the risk score ranged 0-17 (high MAPS risk arbitrarily defined as 10-17). At the 3-year surveillance colonoscopy, ACRN was found in 5.1 % of the high MAPS risk group versus 3.9 % of the high-risk CRN group. The colonoscopy number needed to detect one metachronous ACRN at the 3-year surveillance was 19.5 (95 % CI 11.7-33.2) for the high MAPS risk group versus 25.8 (95 % CI 15.4-44.0) for the high-risk CRN group. These findings were similarly confirmed in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our MAPS model based on clinical and colonoscopic parameters effectively predicts the risk of a metachronous ACRN.

The Risk of Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Rises in Parallel with an Increasing Number of High-Risk Findings at Baseline

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal adenomas that are ≥10 mm have villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or that are associated with ≥3 adenomas are considered high-risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia. We evaluated the cumulative incidence of metachronous advanced neoplasia according to the total number of high-risk findings detected on baseline colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study performed in 862 patients who underwent removal of colorectal adenomas between 2005 and 2009. At least one surveillance colonoscopy had been conducted at Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3-4 high-risk findings at 1 year were 0.7%, 1.3%, 2.8%, and 8.0%; at 3 years, those were 5.9%, 11.9%, 15.5%, and 24.7%; and at 5 years, those were 8.5%, 18.7%, 26.3%, and 37.2%, respectively. In a multivariate model, the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was significantly higher for the multiple high-risk findings group when compared with the 0 high-risk findings group (1 high-risk (+) hazard ratio, 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.00-3.44]; 2 high-risk (+) 1.84 [0.88-3.84]; and 3-4 high-risk (+) 3.29 [1.54-7.01]; ptrend=0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of overlapping multiple high-risk findings was associated with an increased risk of advanced neoplasia during surveillance.

A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare endoscopy and pathology sizing in a large population-based series of colorectal adenomas and to evaluate the implications for patient stratification into surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

Endoscopy and pathology sizes available from intact adenomas removed at colonoscopies performed as part of the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, from 2010 to 2015, were included in this study. Chi-squared tests were applied to compare size categories in relation to clinicopathologic parameters and colonoscopy surveillance strata according to current American Gastroenterology Association and British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 2521 adenomas from 1467 individuals were included. There was a trend toward larger endoscopy than pathology sizing in 4 of the 5 study centers, but overall sizing concordance was good. Significantly greater clustering with sizing to the nearest 5 mm was evident in endoscopy versus pathology sizing (30% vs 19%, P < .001), which may result in lower accuracy. Applying a 10-mm cut-off relevant to guidelines on risk stratification, 7.3% of all adenomas and 28.3% of those 8 to 12 mm in size had discordant endoscopy and pathology size categorization. Depending on which guidelines are applied, 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals had differing risk stratification for surveillance recommendations, with the use of pathology sizing resulting in marginally fewer recommended surveillance colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of pathology or endoscopy approaches to determine adenoma size will potentially influence surveillance colonoscopy follow-up in 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals. Pathology sizing appears more accurate than endoscopy sizing, and preferential use of pathology size would result in a small, but clinically important, decreased burden on surveillance colonoscopy demand. Careful endoscopy sizing is required for adenomas removed piecemeal.

Optimal Colonoscopy Surveillance Interval after Polypectomy

The detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and postpolypectomy surveillance are considered important for the control of colorectal cancer (CRC). Surveillance using colonoscopy is an effective tool for preventing CRC after colorectal polypectomy, especially if compliance is good. In current practice, the intervals between colonoscopies after polypectomy are variable. Different recommendations for recognizing at risk groups and defining surveillance intervals after an initial finding of colorectal adenomas have been published. However, high-grade dysplasia and the number and size of adenomas are known major cancer predictors. Based on this, a subgroup of patients that may benefit from intensive surveillance colonoscopy can be identified.

Frequency of colonic adenomatous polyps in a tertiary hospital in Mumbai

INTRODUCTION

Incidence of colorectal carcinoma is increasing all over world. There is limited data on colorectal polyps from India. We evaluated the histomorphological features of colorectal polyps and determined risk stratification in adenomatous polyps.

METHODS

In 4970 consecutive colonoscopies, colorectal polyps were detected in 515 cases (10.3 %). Polyps were classified using standard histological criteria. Each polyp was evaluated for presence of dysplasia. Adenomatous polyps were classified as low-risk adenomas (1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm) and high-risk adenomas characterized by villous histology, high-grade dysplasia, size ≥10 mm, or ≥3 adenomas.

RESULTS

Of 515 colorectal polyps, 270 (52.4 %) were adenomatous, followed by 78 (15.1 %) inflammatory, 78 (15.1 %) hyperplastic, 32 (6.2 %) hamartomatous polyps, 25 (4.8 %) benign epithelial polyps, 5 (0.9 %) cap polyps, 5 (0.9 %) lipomatous polyps, 3 (0.5 %) angiomatous polyps, 4 (0.7 %) lymphoid, and 15 (2.9 %) cases with adenocarcinoma masquerading as polyps. Mean (SD) age with colorectal polyps was 54.8 (33.0) years while for adenomatous polyps, 59.5 (14.8) years with male to female ratio of 2:1. Majority of adenomatous polyps 124 (45.9 %) were tubular adenomas present in rectosigmoid. High-grade dysplasia was found in 38 (14 %) adenomas. One hundred and fifty-five (57.4 %) were high risk of which majority were villous adenomas and nine (7.2 %) tubular adenomas.

CONCLUSION

The most common colorectal polyps found during routine colonoscopy were 270 adenomatous (52.4 %) cases. Of these, 155 (57.4 %) adenomatous polyps were high-risk category. Population prevalence data of colonic polyps in general population beyond the age of 50 years needs to be obtained.

Risk of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia According to the Number of High-Risk Findings at Index Colonoscopy: A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID) Study

BACKGROUND

Data regarding outcomes for patients with multiple findings for high-risk adenomas are scarce.

AIM

To compare the risk for colorectal neoplasm (CRN) recurrence according to the number of high-risk findings.

METHODS

This was a retrospective and multicenter study. Patients who had one or more high-risk adenomas at the index colonoscopy and underwent follow-up colonoscopy 2.5 or more years after the index colonoscopy were included. The number of high-risk findings was defined as follows: number of adenomas larger than 1 cm + number of adenomas with HGD + number of adenomas with a villous component + existence (counted as 1) or nonexistence (counted as 0) of three or more adenomas.

RESULTS

A total of 1646 patients were included, and the mean duration between index and follow-up colonoscopy was approximately 4 years. The cumulative incidence rate of recurrent advanced CRN in patients with three or more high-risk findings was higher than that in patients with one or two high-risk findings (p < 0.001). However, the difference in 3-year cumulative incidence rates of recurrent advanced CRN between the two groups was not great, although it was statistically significant (4.8 vs. 2.3 %, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

A 3-year surveillance interval for patients with multiple high-risk findings, regardless of the number of high-risk findings, appears reasonable.