Search

BACKGROUND In the National Polyp Study (NPS), colorectal cancer was prevented by colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps. We evaluated the long-term effect of colonoscopic polypectomy in a study on mortality from colorectal cancer. METHODS We included in this analysis all patients prospectively referred for initial colonoscopy (between 1980 and 1990) at NPS clinical centers who had polyps (adenomas and nonadenomas). The National Death Index was used to identify deaths and to determine the cause of death; follow-up time was as long as 23 years. Mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas removed was compared with the expected incidence-based mortality from colorectal cancer in the general population, as estimated from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, and with the observed mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with nonadenomatous polyps (internal control group). RESULTS Among 2602 patients who had adenomas removed during participation in the study, after a median of 15.8 years, 1246 patients had died from any cause and 12 had died from colorectal cancer. Given an estimated 25.4 expected deaths from colorectal cancer in the general population, the standardized incidence-based mortality ratio was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.80) with colonoscopic polypectomy, suggesting a 53% reduction in mortality. Mortality from colorectal cancer was similar among patients with adenomas and those with nonadenomatous polyps during the first 10 years after polypectomy (relative risk, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 10.6). CONCLUSIONS These findings support the hypothesis that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents death from colorectal cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.)

The flat adenoma may be a more aggressive pathway in colorectal carcinogenesis. Sessile adenomas from the National Polyp Study cohort were reclassified histopathologically as flat or polypoid and compared with initial and surveillance pathology.A total of 933 sessile adenomas detected during 1980-1990 were reclassified as follows: (1) adenoma thickness (AT):or =1.3 mm, and (2) adenoma ratio (AR): adenoma thickness2x normal mucosa thickness. Logistic regression was used to assess whether flat adenomas had an effect on risk for high-grade dysplasia initially, and a Cox proportional hazards model assessed the risk for advanced adenomas at surveillance.The analysis encompassed 8401 person-years of follow-up evaluation. AT and AR measures of adenoma flatness were 95% concordant. By the AT measure, flat adenomas (n = 474) represented 27% of all baseline adenomas. Flat adenomas were found to be no more likely to exhibit high-grade dysplasia than sessile (polypoid) or pedunculated adenomas, the odds ratio for high-grade dysplasia was 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-5.47; P = 0.23) for sessile (polypoid) vs. flat adenomas and 1.78 (95% CI, 0.63-5.02; P = 0.28) for pedunculated vs. flat adenomas adjusted for size, villous component, and location, and corrected for correlation of risk within an individual patient. Patients with flat adenomas at initial colonoscopy were not at greater risk for advanced adenomas at surveillance compared with those with polypoid adenomas only, the odds ratio was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.4-1.42; P = .39), adjusted for multiplicity, age, and family history of colorectal cancer.Flat adenomas identified in the National Polyp Study cohort at baseline were not associated with a higher risk for high-grade dysplasia initially, or for advanced adenomas at surveillance.

Background After patients have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colonoscopic examination or a barium enema is the better method of surveillance. Methods As part of the National Polyp Study, we offered colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance to patients with newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. Although barium enema was performed first, the endoscopist did not know the results. Results A total of 973 patients underwent one or more colonoscopic examinations for surveillance. In the case of 580 of these patients, we performed 862 paired colonoscopic examinations and barium-enema examinations that met the requirements of the protocol. The findings on barium enema were positive in 222 (26 percent) of the paired examinations, including 94 of the 242 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more adenomas were detected (rate of detection of adenomas, 39 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 33 to 45 percent). The proportion of examinations in which ...

Background The adenoma–adenocarcinoma sequence in colorectal cancer suggests an increased risk of colorectal cancer in the families of patients with adenomatous polyps. Methods A random sample of participants in the National Polyp Study who had newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps were interviewed for information on the history of colorectal cancer in their parents and siblings. The risk of colorectal cancer in family members was analyzed according to the characteristics of the patients with adenomas and in comparison with a sample of patients' spouses, who served as controls. Results Among the patients with adenomas, 1199 provided information on whether they had a family history of colorectal cancer. After the exclusion of families for which information was incomplete and of 48 patients who had been referred for colonoscopy solely because they had a family history of colorectal cancer, there were 1031 patients with adenomas, 1865 parents, 2381 siblings, and 1411 spouse controls. The relative risk of colore...

Background The current practice of removing adenomatous polyps of the colon and rectum is based on the belief that this will prevent colorectal cancer. To address the hypothesis that colonoscopic polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer, we analyzed the results of the National Polyp Study with reference to other published results. Methods The study cohort consisted of 1418 patients who had a complete colonoscopy during which one or more adenomas of the colon or rectum were removed. The patients subsequently underwent periodic colonoscopy during an average follow-up of 5.9 years, and the incidence of colorectal cancer was ascertained. The incidence rate of colorectal cancer was compared with that in three reference groups, including two cohorts in which colonic polyps were not removed and one general-population registry, after adjustment for sex, age, and polyp size. Results Ninety-seven percent of the patients were followed clinically for a total of 8401 person-years, and 80 percent returned...

Background The identification and removal of adenomatous polyps and post-polypectomy surveillance are considered to be important for the control of colorectal cancer. In current practice, the intervals between colonoscopies after polypectomy are variable, often a year long, and not based on data from randomized clinical trials. We sought to determine whether follow-up colonoscopy at three years would detect important colonic lesions as well as follow-up colonoscopy at both one and three years. Methods Patients were eligible if they had one or more adenomas, no previous polypectomy, and a complete colonoscopy and if all their polyps had been removed. They were randomly assigned to have follow-up colonoscopy at one and three years or at three years only. The two study end points were the detection of any adenoma, and the detection of adenomas with advanced pathological features (defined as those >1 cm in diameter and those with high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer). Results Of 2632 eligible patients, 141...

The National Polyp Study (NPS) is a multicenter prospective randomized trial designed to evaluate follow-up surveillance strategies in patients who have undergone polypectomy for the control of large bowel cancer. The study design was developed by a joint research committee from American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the American College of Gastroenterology. Subjects who met the eligibility criteria were randomized into two different treatment arms. Eligibility criteria included: removal of one or more adenomas; complete colonoscopy; no prior polypectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, or familial polyposis; and no history of colon cancer. The treatment arms consisted of a frequent follow-up (1 and 3 years after initial polypectomy) and a less frequent follow-up (3 years). Follow-up examinations included fecal occult blood tests, air-contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy. The latter was done on 9112 referred patients at the seven participating centers from November 1980 until February 1990 who had no history of polypectomy, colon cancer, familial polyposis, or inflammatory bowel disease. Of these patients, 4763 (52.3%) had no polyps; 549 (6.0%) had an invasive cancer; 776 (8.5%) had nonadenomatous polyps; 208 (2.3%) had incomplete examinations; 184 (2.0%) had other findings; and 2632 (28.9%) had one or more adenomas, of which 1418 (53.9%) were randomized to one of the two treatment arms. This article reports the background, rationale, objectives, methods, and organization of this study and includes patient characteristics on initial presentation. Future data provided by the NPS may help in the development of recommendations for surveillance guidelines for such patients. This study also provides a framework to address questions regarding the natural history of adenomas and their relationship with colorectal cancer.

Unsedated colonoscopy is available worldwide, but is not a routine option in the United States (US). We conducted a literature review supplemented by our experience and expert commentaries to provide data to support the use of unsedated colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Medline data from 1966 to 2009 were searched to identify relevant articles on the subject. Data were summarized and co-authors provided critiques as well as accounts of unsedated colonoscopy for screening and surveillance. Diagnostic colonoscopy was initially developed as an unsedated procedure. Procedure-related discomfort led to wide adoption of sedation in the US, although unsedated colonoscopy remains the usual practice elsewhere. The increased use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in healthy, asymptomatic individuals suggests a reassessment of the burden of sedation in colonoscopy for screening is appropriate in the US for lowering costs and minimizing complications for patients. A water method developed to minimize discomfort has shown promise to enhance outcomes of unsedated colonoscopy. The use of scheduled, unsedated colonoscopy in the US appears to be feasible for colorectal cancer screening. Studies to assess its applicability in diverse practice settings deserve to be conducted and supported.

Endoscopic word database systems are not standardized. An endoscopic word reference has been developed by the World Organization for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The suggestion is made to develop a standard software program for gastrointestinal endoscopy based on this system or one similar.

An estimated 145,000 patients will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the United States in 1987. Although half of these cancers are potentially detectable by sigmoidoscopy, rigid sigmoidoscopy is not widely used for early detection, largely because of the discomfort it causes patients. Flexible sigmoidoscopy has been shown to be more acceptable and more efficient in detecting cancers. In order for flexible sigmoidoscopy to be of more value in cancer control, however, primary care physicians must learn the technique and incorporate it into their complete physical examinations. This paper reports the results of a multicenter trial that evaluated the training required for non-endoscopists to learn how to use the 30-cm flexible sigmoidoscope. Instructions with plastic models, followed by an average of six supervised patient examinations, proved sufficient for them to learn the necessary skills.

a Reproduced with permission of the American Edwards Laboratories. Table 1. Complications in 20,000 gastric bubbles: customer experience reports (11/85-12/86)· physical and psychological contraindications, insertion/retrieval procedures, patient management issues with respect to adjunctive drug therapy and the need for appropriate patient education on nutrition, exercise and behavior modification, were included. The authors of this summary developed the program content, format, and workshop makeup. The conference included plenary sessions on physiological principles, clinical data, aspects of patient management, relationship to surgery, balloon insertion/retrieval techniques, complications associated with the use of gastric balloons, the design and experience with alternative intragastric balloons, and possible mechanisms of acThe concept of an intragastric balloon represents a unique, innovative, and possibly efficacious approach to the short-term management of obesity. The placement of an intragastric balloon as a temporary adjunct to behavior modification and diet has been recommended to produce weight loss in a selected group of obese patients.8 Widespread clinical utilization of the procedure occurred following FDA approval of the Garren-Edwards balloon, a cylindrical air-containing bubble made of polyurethane. Controversy concerning indications, utilization, efficacy, and safety prompted the manufacturers of the Garren-Edwards balloon to provide an educational grant to address these and related issues. A scientific conference entitled "Obesity and the Gastric Balloon: A Comprehensive Workshop" was held in Tarpon Springs, Florida, March 19-21, 1987. Seventy-five international experts from the fields of gastroenterology, surgery, obesity, nutrition, and behavior medicine attended the conference to examine current research and clinical experience with the Garren-Edwards gastric bubble, other gastric balloons under study in the United States, and gastric balloons available for use in other countries. Representatives from the different medical disciplines necessary to examine all aspects of patient treatment with gastric balloons, i.e., patient selection with attention to both

Gastrointestinal endoscopic examinations with the Welch-Allyn and Fujinon electronic video endoscopes were evaluated in four phases in our community hospital endoscopy unit. Resolution and clinical comparisons to fiberoptic instruments offered advantages for the electronic systems. A review of 1200 consecutive procedures for efficacy, safety, and maintenance considerations was conducted. The use of the video endoscopes as first choice for nearly all diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was more favorable than for the ongoing experience with fiberoptic instruments.

The Southern California Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, by means of a questionnaire sent to its members, has reported on the complications encountered in a total of 3,850 colonoscopies and 901 polypectomies. The incidence of perforation and bleeding in this series is determined and compared to those available in the current literature. The morbidity and mortality of colonoscopic polypectomy is compared to polypectomy performed by surgery.

In Reply.— The COMMENTARY "Who Should Be Doing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy?" was intended to address the problem of untrained persons attempting fiberoptic endoscopy on patients when expertise is available. The value of flexible sigmoidoscopy as a screening tool for colon cancer is not disputed. However, this "half-a-loaf" procedure (flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy) 1,2 may lead to inadequate examinations when the need for total colonoscopy exists. Drs Felmar and Rodney agree that teaching the procedure is appropriate. The basic question concerns who should do flexible sigmoidoscopy. It should not be assumed that proficiency at rigid sigmoidoscopy implies competency to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy. It is not appropriate, therefore, to attempt flexible sigmoidoscopy without first obtaining training and demonstrating competency in the performance of the procedure. The training required to perform short colonoscopy with the 60-cm instrument may be less than that required for total colonoscopy, though the negotiation of the sigmoid-descending colon junction is

THE QUESTION of who should be doing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a problem that confronts hospital committees charged with granting endoscopic privileges. 1 The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals requires that individual medical staffs set criteria for privileges and have a process for delineation of these privileges. The Federation of Digestive Disease Societies has approved Guidelines for Training in Endoscopy 2 and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has prepared Guidelines for Standards of Practice of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy . 3 These two documents may guide hospital committees and require further interpretation in that event. Training Guidelines The Guidelines for Training apply to residency-fellowship programs and, when adhered to, provide for physicians who are skillful in the ability both to perform endoscopy and to relate the procedures to the care of the patient. Some gastroenterologists as well as many general and colorectal surgeons have not had their training in programs that