Adoption of colonoscopy surveillance intervals in subjects who received polypectomy in southern China: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different colonoscopy intervals among average-risk (5 vs 10 years) and high-risk (1 vs 3 years) southern Chinese populations.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model with a hypothetical population of 100 000 individuals aged 50-85 years. Average risk was defined as 1-2 non-advanced adenomas (tubular adenoma sized < 10 mm without high-grade dysplasia). High risk was defined as ≥ 3 non-advanced adenomas or any advanced adenoma (adenoma sized ≥ 10 mm, with high-grade dysplasia, or with villous/tubulovillous histology). Three strategies were compared: a 5/1 strategy (average-risk subjects: 5-year interval; high-risk subjects: 1-year interval), a 10/3 strategy, and a control strategy (a 10/10 strategy). Costs (US dollar), quality-adjusted-life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit were calculated. If the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of one strategy against another was less than willingness-to-pay ($24 302 US/quality-adjusted-life-years), the strategy was more cost-effective than another.

RESULTS

Compared with the 10/3 strategy, the 5/1 strategy involved more costs and effects (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $40 044 US/quality-adjusted life-years). When the 10/10 strategy was regarded as the control, the 5/1 strategy had a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than the 10/3 strategy ($26 056 vs $10 344 US/quality-adjusted life-years). Furthermore, the 10/3 strategy had the highest net health benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

A 10/3 interval was more cost-effective than a 5/1 interval. From an economic perspective, our findings supported a 10-year interval for average-risk individuals and a 3-year interval for high-risk subjects. The findings could help form the optimal colonoscopy interval for average-risk and high-risk patients.

Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma with a 3-months interval in "extremely high-risk" patients does not further improve survival

BACKGROUND

An enhanced surveillance schedule has been proposed for cirrhotics with viral etiology, who are considered at extremely high-risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

AIMS

We compared the 3- and 6-months surveillance interval, evaluating cancer stage at diagnosis and patient survival.

METHODS

Data of 777 HBV and HCV cirrhotic patients with HCC diagnosed under a 3-months (n = 109, 3MS group) or a 6-months (n = 668, 6MS group) surveillance were retrieved from the Italian Liver Cancer database. Survival in the 3MS group was considered as observed and adjusted for lead-time bias, and survival analysis was repeated after a propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The 3-months surveillance interval neither reduced the share of patients diagnosed outside the Milano criteria, nor increased their probability to receive curative treatments. The median survival of 6MS patients (55.0 months [45.9-64.0]) was not significantly different from the observed (47.0 months [35.0-58.9]; p = 0.43) and adjusted (44.9 months [33.4-56.4]; p = 0.30) survival of 3MS patients. A propensity score analysis confirmed the absence of a survival advantage for 3MS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A tightening of surveillance schedule does not increase the diagnosis of early-stage tumors, the feasibility of curative treatments and the survival. Therefore, we should maintain the 6-months interval in the surveillance of viral cirrhotics.

Optimal surveillance interval after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal neoplasia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal neoplastic lesions (≥ 20 mm) are commonly treated via piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR) but have a high rate of local recurrence. We aimed to clarify the optimal surveillance interval after p-EMR for these neoplasias.

METHODS

In this multicenter (15 participating institutions) prospective, randomized trial, 180 patients recruited over a 4-year period and were classified based on tumor location, tumor diameter, histological diagnosis, institution, and number of resected specimens. The patients underwent curative p-EMR followed by scheduled surveillance colonoscopy at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group A; n = 90) or at 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group B; n = 90). The primary endpoint was cumulative local recurrence at 6 months after p-EMR. Secondary endpoints included local recurrence and the cumulative surgical resection rate of recurrent tumors during the 24-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

The median tumor diameter was 25 mm (IQR 20-30). Six months after p-EMR, 12 and 6 local recurrences were noted in groups A and B, which corresponded to 13 and 8 recurrences, respectively, during the 24-month surveillance period. The primary and secondary endpoints of recurrence were not significantly different between the groups on either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis; no surgery case was observed in group B when a strict surveillance protocol of 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up post-EMR was followed.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who underwent p-EMR for neoplastic lesions, additional postprocedural 3-month surveillance did not show superior results in detecting recurrence compared with a 6-month surveillance interval.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000015740.

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.

Assessment of the Surveillance Interval at 1 Year after Curative Treatment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Risk Stratification

Background/Aims

Guidelines recommend surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence at 3-month intervals during the first year after curative treatment and 6-month intervals thereafter in all patients. This strategy does not reflect individual risk of recurrence. We aimed to stratify risk of recurrence to optimize surveillance intervals 1 year after treatment.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 1,316 HCC patients treated with resection/radiofrequency ablation at Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/ A. In patients without 1-year recurrence under 3-monthly surveillance, a new model for recurrence was developed using backward elimination methods: training (n=582)/ validation cohorts (n=291). Overall survival (OS) according to risk stratified by the new model was compared according to surveillance intervals: 3-monthly versus 6-monthly (n=401) after lead time bias correction and propensity-score matching analyses.

Results

Among patients without 1-year recurrence, age and international normalized ratio values were significant factors for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.03; p=0.009 and HR, 5.63; 95% CI, 2.24 to 14.18; p<0.001; respectively). High-risk patients stratified by the new model showed significantly higher recurrence rates than low-risk patients in the validation cohort (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.53; p=0.005). After propensity-score matching between the 3-monthly and 6-monthly surveillance groups, OS in high-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was significantly higher than that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.04); however, OS in low-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was not significantly different from that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.17).

Conclusions

In high-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance can prolong survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance. However, in low-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance might not be beneficial for survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance.

Colon cancer with rapid growth in 16 months confirmed by computed tomographic colonography

This report describes a case of rapidly growing colon cancer confirmed by computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A 75-year-old woman presented at our clinic with complaints of abdominal discomfort and melena. Colorectal examination was performed via CTC. The findings were normal. Sixteen months later, she was referred to our clinic again for positive findings on a faecal immunochemical screening test. A repeat CTC was performed, which revealed a 3 cm ulcerated tumour at the ascending colon. Colonoscopy with biopsy revealed tubular adenocarcinoma. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy was performed and the TNM classification was found to be T3N1M0. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the cancer has not recurred for 2.5 years.

Use of automated irrigation pumps improves quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of automated irrigation pumps (AIPs) in improving the quality of the bowel preparation and the yield of colonoscopy.

METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted at a single medical center. Outpatient colonoscopies performed during a 4-mo time period when AIPs were not in use, were compared to colonoscopies performed during control period. The main outcomes measured were quality of bowel preparation, procedures aborted due to poor preparation, recommendations to repeat at short interval due to sub-optimal bowel preparation and adenoma detection rates.

RESULTS: One thousand and thirty-seven colonoscopies were included. A higher proportion of cases did not achieve a satisfactory bowel preparation when AIPs were not used (24.4% vs 10.3%, P < 0.01). The number of procedures aborted due to inadequate preparation was not significantly different, however a repeat procedure at a short interval was recommended in a higher proportion of cases when AIPs were not used (21.3% vs 6.9%, P < 0.01). Good or excellent preparation was 2.91 (95%CI: 2.04-4.15) times more likely when AIPs were used. Detection of polyps and adenomas was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION: AIP use during colonoscopy results in a higher proportion of colonic preparation rated as satisfactory, although polyp detection rate is not significantly affected. Recommendations for repeat colonoscopy at shorter interval significantly decrease with the use of AIPs. This study supports the use of the irrigation pumps in endoscopy units to improve the quality of colonoscopy.