Search

Colon polyp surveillance now accounts for 25% of all colonoscopies performed. The evidence that colonoscopy surveillance reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence or mortality is weak. The biology of the baseline lesions and quality of the baseline exam are two primary factors contributing to post-colonoscopy CRC. Prior recommendations for surveillance were based largely on the likelihood that patients with adenomas would develop advanced adenomas, a surrogate for CRC. There is now evidence that baseline colonoscopy findings are strongly associated with the risk of incidence or death from CRC. This evidence provides a basis for updated evidence-based recommendations for surveillance. In addition, there is also growing evidence that the quality of the baseline exam is an important predictor of the likelihood of developing post-colonoscopy CRC.

The optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval in the Chinese population is unclear. The present study aimed to assess the optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval after normal baseline screening colonoscopy to avoid overuse or underuse of colonoscopy. This retrospective study included individuals with normal baseline colonoscopy who had undergone at least 2 follow-up colonoscopy examinations at the Digestive Endoscopy Center of our hospital between 2000 and 2013. The risk factors for adenoma and the optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval were assessed. A total of 1,005 individuals (419 men; mean age, 49.34 ± 13.29 years) were included in the study. Of these, 169 individuals had adenomas at colonoscopic surveillance (mean, 1.32 ± 0.79 procedures). The mean adenoma diameter was 0.54 ± 0.38 cm, and the mean number of adenomas was 1.76 ± 1.29. The mean adenoma surveillance interval was 4.76 ± 2.89 years. The risk factors for adenoma identification were age more than 50 years and male gender. The optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval was 4.76 years according to an adenoma detection rate of 5%. The optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval is around 5 years for individuals with normal baseline colonoscopy. Age more than 50 years and male gender are risk factors for adenoma identification.

ObjectiveTo assess whether follow-up colonoscopy after polypectomy at 3 years only, or at 1 and 3 years would effectively detect advanced neoplasia (AN), including nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs).DesignA prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial was conducted in 11 Japanese institutions. The enrolled participants underwent a two-round baseline colonoscopy (interval: 1 year) to remove all neoplastic lesions. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to undergo follow-up colonoscopy at 1 and 3 years (2-examination group) or at 3 years only (1-examination group). The incidence of AN, defined as lesions with low-grade dysplasia ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer, at follow-up colonoscopy was evaluated.ResultsA total of 3926 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 57.3 (range: 40–69) years, and 2440 (62%) were male. Of these, 2166 patients were assigned to two groups (2-examination: 1087, 1-examination: 1079). Overall, we detected 29 AN in 28 patients at follow-up colonoscopy in both groups. On per-protocol analysis (701 in 2-examination vs 763 in 1-examination group), the incidence of AN was similar between the two groups (1.7% vs 2.1%, p=0.599). The results of the non-inferiority test were significant (p=0.017 in per-protocol, p=0.001 in intention-to-treat analysis). NP-CRNs composed of dominantly of the detected AN (62%, 18/29), and most of them were classified into laterally spreading tumour non-granular type (83%, 15/18).ConclusionAfter a two-round baseline colonoscopy, follow-up colonoscopy at 3 years detected AN, including NP-CRNs, as effectively as follow-up colonoscopies performed after 1 and 3 years.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of advanced adenomas (AAs), colorectal cancer (CRC), and/or CRC-related death among individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs).We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published between January 2006 and July 2015. Quality and strength of the evidence were rated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the GRADE framework, respectively.Eleven observational studies (n=64,317) were included. A meta-analysis of eight cohort studies (n=10,139, 3 to 10 years' follow-up) showed a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of AAs in individuals with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy (RR 1.55 (95% CI 1.24-1.94); P=0.0001; IWe observed a small but significant increase in the risk of AAs in people with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy, but compared with the general population, people with LRAs have significantly lower risks of CRC and of CRC-related mortality.

Incomplete resection of polyps could be an important cause of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. However, it is difficult to study progression of incompletely removed polyps or their clinical importance. We aimed to estimate incomplete polyp resection using risk of metachronous neoplasia per colon segment.We performed a retrospective study of 1031 patients (6186 colon segments) who initially underwent resection of a large (10-20 mm) neoplastic polyp at 2 academic medical centers (from 2000 through 2012) and then underwent a subsequent colonoscopy within 0.5 to 5 years. We determined the proportions of metachronous neoplasia in colon segments from which a single large neoplastic polyp was removed and in segments without prior neoplasia. We then used the absolute difference in proportions between these groups to estimate the rate of incomplete resection. Our analysis assumed that development of metachronous neoplasia in each colon segment was the consequence of a newly grown polyp, a previously missed polyp, or an incompletely removed polyp.Metachronous neoplasia was detected in 177 of 757 segments (23.4%) with a single large polyp, and in 438 of 4232 segments (10.3%) without any neoplasia at baseline colonoscopy (P.001). Resections were therefore estimated to be incomplete in 13.0% of segments (95% CI, 9.8-16.2). This proportion was greater for sections with non-pedunculated polyps (18.3%; 95% CI, 14.2-22.5) than pedunculated polyps (3.5%; 95% CI, -0.7 to -11.3; P.001). A higher proportion of piecemeal resections appeared to be incomplete (28.0%; 95% CI, 20.2-35.7) than of en bloc resections (9.2%; 95% CI, 5.9-12.5) (P.001). No differences in incomplete resection were associated with polyp histology.Metachronous neoplasia arises in a significantly higher proportion of colon segments from which a polyp was previously removed. Based on these data, we estimate that 13% of all large polyps are incompletely resected and 18% of large non-pedunculated polyps are incompletely resected. These findings indicate that incomplete resection could be a risk factor for later development of neoplasia. Segment metachronous neoplasia might be used as a marker of resection quality.

Guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies based exclusively on findings at baseline colonoscopy. This recommendation leads to the paradox that the higher the baseline colonoscopy quality, the more surveillance colonoscopies will be indicated according to current guidelines.The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on follow-up findings of different quality metrics of the endoscopist performing the baseline colonoscopy.This retrospective cohort study included individuals with advanced adenomas at baseline colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR) were determined for 44 endoscopists. Surveillance colonoscopies were checked after systematic tracking.A total of 574 individuals were diagnosed with advanced adenomas, of whom 270 received a surveillance colonoscopy. Patients whose baseline colonoscopy endoscopist had an ADR lower than the median of 33.8% had significantly higher rates of advanced neoplasia at follow-up (13.1% vs 4.0%;Our results suggest that the risk of identifying advanced adenomas at follow-up is closely related to the quality metrics of the endoscopist who performs the baseline colonoscopy.

Several gastrointestinal societies strongly recommend colonoscopy surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal neoplasms. Common denominators to these recommendations include: high-quality baseline colonoscopy before inclusion in a surveillance program; risk stratification based on clinicopathological profiles to guide surveillance intervals; and endoscopist responsibility for providing surveillance advice. Considerable variability also exists between guidelines (i.e. regarding risk classification and surveillance intervals). In this review, we examine key factors for quality of post-polypectomy surveillance practice, in particular bowel preparation, endoscopic findings at baseline examination and adherence to surveillance recommendations. Frequently asked questions by the practising endoscopist are addressed.

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.

Few prior reports exist that address the appropriate colonoscopy surveillance interval for individuals 50 years old. We compared the risk of metachronous neoplasia between younger (20-49 years) and older (50-54 years) cohorts.This multicenter retrospective cohort study compared the incidence of metachronous neoplasia in younger and older cohorts according to baseline risk stratification. Subjects were eligible if they underwent their first colonoscopy between June 2006 and May 2010 and had at least 1 or more surveillance colonoscopy up to June 2015.Among a total of 10,477 subjects who underwent baseline colonoscopy, 9722 were eligible after excluding 755 subjects. Of those 9722 subjects, 43% underwent surveillance colonoscopy. In the baseline high-risk adenoma group (n = 840), the 3-year risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was 10.7% in the younger patients on screening colonoscopy and 8.9% in the older patients (P.1). In the baseline low-risk adenoma group (n = 1869), the 5-year risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was 4.9% in the younger patients on screening colonoscopy and 5.1% in the older patients (P.1). Similarly, in the baseline no neoplasia group (n = 7013), the 5-year risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was 4.1% in the younger patients on screening colonoscopy and 5.6% in the older patients (P.1).Considering the similar risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia in younger and older individuals, we suggest a 3-year surveillance interval for high-risk adenoma and a 5-year surveillance interval for low-risk adenoma in young individuals without a strong family history.

Objectives. Mucosal healing has become the new goal of treatment in ulcerative colitis. Fecal calprotectin has been demonstrated to differentiate between mucosal inflammation and mucosal healing. With this project, we investigated whether a reduction in f-calprotectin to μg/g after medical treatment for active ulcerative colitis could predict mucosal healing. Material and Methods. After a baseline colonoscopy, 20 patients with active ulcerative colitis were followed with consecutive fecal calprotectin monthly until two measurements of fecal calprotectin μg/g or a maximum follow-up of 12 months. A flexible sigmoidoscopy was then performed and Mayo endoscopic subscore was used to evaluate degree of inflammation. Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index was used for evaluation of clinical disease activity. Results. A total of 16 patients achieved fecal calprotectin μg/g during follow-up, and all 16 patients had endoscopic mucosal healing (Mayo endoscopic subscore of ≤1) on the second endoscopy. The remaining four patients had persistently high f-calprotectin levels before the second endoscopy with Mayo endoscopic subscore corresponding to endoscopic mucosal healing in three out of four patients. Conclusions. Fecal calprotectin μg/g after medical treatment for active ulcerative colitis is a reliable marker of endoscopic mucosal healing.

We hypothesized that perceived risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC worry would be the main predictors of surveillance behavior in patients undergoing colonoscopy. We therefore assessed factors predicting colonoscopy use for re-examination one year after colonoscopy. Patients who had undergone colonoscopy and were scheduled for re-examination one year later were recruited. Patients were administered questionnaires after baseline colonoscopy assessing demographic factors, perceived risk, CRC worry, cancer preventability, knowledge of CRC and results of colonoscopy. We confirmed whether participants underwent colonoscopy re-examinations one year later (follow-up). Finally, 56 participants completed the research and were used in the final analysis (response rate = 65.1%). We found that 37.5% of the participants who underwent baseline colonoscopy underwent follow-up colonoscopy one year later. Follow-up colonoscopy was not significantly associated with any psychological variables, but was significantly associated with educational status (postsecondary) (odds ratio [OR] = 7.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.83–27.56) and the results of baseline colonoscopy in patients who did not undergo polypectomy but had remaining polyps (OR = 4.26, 95% CI = 1.02–17.84). Additionally, significant differences in cancer threat-related variables were observed among groups of patients who, during baseline colonoscopy, underwent polypectomy but had no remaining polyps, had polyps removed with some polyps remaining, or did not undergo polypectomy but had remaining polyps (p

After normal colonoscopy, the 5-year risk of colorectal neoplasia is sufficiently low for asymptomatic people over 50 years of age. In China, the incidence of colorectal carcinoma of Mongolian people is higher than that of Han people. The aim of this study was to assess the 5-year risk of colorectal neoplasia after normal colonoscopy in asymptomatic Chinese Mongolian population.A cohort of asymptomatic Chinese Mongolian people (≥50 years old) were recruited and followed up with colonoscopy 5 years after colonoscopy. Baseline colonoscopy and follow-up colonoscopy findings were categorized based on the most advanced lesions: no adenoma, nonadvanced adenoma, and advanced adenoma. Five-year risk of colorectal neoplasia in these people was assessed according to the rates of no baseline adenoma and advanced adenoma at the end of 5 years.A total of 480 of the 538 recruited people underwent follow-up colonoscopy at the end of 5 years. In people with no baseline adenoma, 27.3 % (82/301) was found to have any adenoma, and 1.7 % had advanced adenoma at follow-up colonoscopy. The risk of an advanced adenoma did not differ significantly between people with no adenoma at baseline and those with nonadvanced adenoma (relative risk (RR), 1.06; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.19-6.07). Advanced adenoma at baseline colonoscopy was the independent risk factor for advanced adenoma recurrence, compared with no adenoma at baseline (RR, 8.25; 95 % CI, 1.90-35.77).The risk of advanced adenoma is low 5 years after the normal baseline colonoscopy, even in asymptomatic Chinese Mongolian population over 50 years of age.

The medical literature describes disparity in colonoscopy performance. This randomised, controlled study aimed to characterise the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology (GI) trainees. Gastroenterology trainees of similar experience levels who independently performed 581 colonoscopies over the study period were randomised to receive feedback/no feedback on their colonoscopy performance. Baseline colonoscopy performance was similar in both groups. Following feedback, caecal intubation improved by 10.5% (from 72.9 to 83.4%, p = 0.04) in the feedback group and declined by 6.1% (from 78 to 71.9%, p = 0.2) in the control group; polyp detection improved by 5.1% (from 12.9 to 18.0%, p = 0.2) in the feedback group and by 2.9% (from 16.7 to 19.6%, p = 0.5) in the control group. Systematic feedback appears to enhance colonoscopy performance among GI trainees.

Although evidence exists linking smoking to precancerous colorectal adenomatous polyps, few studies have examined the association between cigarette smoking and recurrence of colorectal polyps. This association was investigated prospectively with data from the Polyp Prevention Trial. Cigarette smoking data were collected through baseline interviews. The study was completed by 1872 men and women with presence of adenomas at baseline colonoscopy. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between cigarette smoking and polyp recurrence (adenomatous and hyperplastic) up to four years from baseline. Adenoma recurrence was not related to cigarette smoking. Current smokers had increased odds of hyperplastic polyps at follow-up compared to never smokers (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.06–4.01). Current smoking was associated with subsequent distal (OR 3.44, 95% CI 2.38–4.95) and rectal (OR 3.53, 95% CI 2.15–5.78) hyperplastic polyps, but not subsequent proximal hyperplastic polyps. Cigarette smoking was associated with subsequent multiple and small size (4 mm) hyperplastic polyps. Significant linear trends were observed between development of subsequent hyperplastic polyps and all smoking variables. Although no association with recurrent adenomas was observed, cigarette smoking was significantly associated with hyperplastic polyp development, except for those in the proximal colon. This prospective study confirms that cigarette smoking has a significant effect on the development of hyperplastic colorectal polyps.

Objective Some individuals are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) despite recent colonoscopy. We examined individuals under colonoscopic surveillance for colonic adenomas to assess possible reasons for diagnosing cancer after a recent colonoscopy with complete removal of any identified polyps. Design Primary data were pooled from eight large (>800 patients) North American studies in which participants with adenoma(s) had a baseline colonoscopy (with intent to remove all visualised lesions) and were followed with subsequent colonoscopy. We used an algorithm based on the time from previous colonoscopy and the presence, size and histology of adenomas detected at prior exam to assign interval cancers as likely being new, missed, incompletely resected (while previously an adenoma) or due to failed biopsy detection. Results 9167 participants (mean age 62) were included in the analyses, with a median follow-up of 47.2 months. Invasive cancer was diagnosed in 58 patients (0.6%) during follow-up (1.71 per 1000 person-years follow-up). Most cancers (78%) were early stage (I or II); however, 9 (16%) resulted in death from CRC. We classified 30 cancers (52%) as probable missed lesions, 11 (19%) as possibly related to incomplete resection of an earlier, non-invasive lesion and 14 (24%) as probable new lesions. The cancer diagnosis may have been delayed in three cases (5%) because of failed biopsy detection. Conclusions Despite recent colonoscopy with intent to remove all neoplasia, CRC will occasionally be diagnosed. These cancers primarily seem to represent lesions that were missed or incompletely removed at the prior colonoscopy and might be avoided by increased emphasis on identifying and completely removing all neoplastic lesions at colonoscopy.

Follow-up after endoscopic polypectomy should be led by the number, size, and histopatologic characteristics of the polyps at the baseline colonoscopy. In a patient with large sessile polyps and incomplete excision, a follow-up colonoscopy at 2-6 months is suggested. After curative resection of invasive carcinoma or malignant polyps, intense colonoscopy follow-up at 1 year is mandatory. Patients with high-grade dysplasia adenoma, villous histology, polyps larger than 10 mm, or more than three polyps have an intermediate risk of advanced neoplasia, and surveillance at 3 years is recommended. Patients with 1-2 small tubular adenomas should undergo surveillance colonoscopy at 5-10 years; in patients with negative or sporadic hyperplastic polyps at baseline colonoscopy, surveillance is now suggested after 10 years.

Objectives: The decision tree underlying current practice guidelines for post polypectomy surveillance relies on risk stratification based on predictive attributes gleaned from adenomas removed on screening colonoscopy examination. Our primary aim was to estimate the magnitude of association between baseline adenoma attributes and the risk of adenoma recurrence and invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC). Our secondary aims were to estimate the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of surveillance compared with screening colonoscopies and describe time trends in preventive colonoscopy utilization. Methods: We used prospective analyses of retrospectively collected clinical data from electronic health records. A cohort of primary care patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening was assembled encompassing 110,452 subjects, of which 3,300 had adenomas removed on screening examination. Of those patients who had a follow-up surveillance colonoscopy (defined as a patient with a documented adenoma on prior colonoscopy) recorded during the study period, 537 had a recurrent adenoma. Results: Of those recurrent adenomas, 354 had a high-risk attributes. High-risk attributes were described at >3 adenomas, at least one adenoma >10 mm in size, high-grade dysplasia, or villous features. The risk of developing invasive CRC among post polypectomy patients was significantly higher if the baseline adenomas displayed any of the following attributes: more numerous than 3 (4.3-fold higher risk, 95% confidence interval (CI) low, high 1.4, 12.9), larger than 10 mm in size (5.2-fold higher risk, 95% CI low, high 1.8, 15.1), high-grade dysplasia (13.2-fold risk, 95% CI low, high 2.8, 62.1), or villous features (7.4-fold higher risk, 95% CI low, high 2.5, 21.5). These attributes combined added a net value of 22.8% to the probability of correctly predicting CRC. There was a threefold increase in surveillance utilization relative to screening from 2005 to 2011. The ADR of surveillance (34.1%) was 1.5-fold higher than that of screening (23.1%). Conclusions: These results emphasize the need to mitigate excessive risk by performing timely surveillance colonoscopies in patients with baseline adenomas displaying high-risk attributes as recommended in practice guidelines.