Search

Progression-free survival (PFS) is an increasingly important surrogate endpoint in cancer clinical trials. However, the true time of progression is typically unknown if the evaluation of progression status is only scheduled at given surveillance intervals. In addition, comparison between treatment arms under different surveillance schema is not uncommon. Our aim is to explore whether the heterogeneity of the surveillance intervals may interfere with the validity of the conclusion of efficacy based on PFS, and the extent to which the variation would bias the results. We conduct comprehensive simulation studies to explore the aforementioned goals in a two-arm randomized control trial. We introduce three steps to simulate survival data with predefined surveillance intervals under different censoring rate considerations. We report the estimated hazard ratios and examine false positive rate, power and bias under different surveillance intervals, given different baseline median PFS, hazard ratio and censoring rate settings. Results show that larger heterogeneous lengths of surveillance intervals lead to higher false positive rate and overestimate the power, and the effect of the heterogeneous surveillance intervals may depend upon both the life expectancy of the tumor prognoses and the censoring proportion of the survival data. We also demonstrate such heterogeneity effect of surveillance intervals on PFS in a phase III metastatic colorectal cancer trial. In our opinions, adherence to consistent surveillance intervals should be favored in designing the comparative trials. Otherwise, it needs to be appropriately taken into account when analyzing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is important for the detection of curable gastric cancer (GC). However, there are no appropriate surveillance data during routine endoscopic inspections. This study aimed to clarify the risk factors of pT1b or deeper GC detection during surveillance endoscopy. Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, cross‐sectional study conducted in 15 Japanese hospitals. We retrospectively analyzed patients with GC who had previously undergone surveillance endoscopy at each institution from January 2014 to March 2020. Patients who had undergone gastrectomy, non‐infection of Helicobacter pylori (Hp), and those with intervals <3 months or >10 years from a previous endoscopy were excluded. Results: In total, 1085 patients with GCs detected during surveillance endoscopy were enrolled. The multivariate logistic analysis revealed that current Hp infection (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50–3.16) and a surveillance interval of >1.5 years (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.35–2.84) were independent risk factors for pT1b or deeper GC. The 5‐year disease‐specific survival (5y‐DSS) rate of GC was significantly lower in patients with surveillance interval of >1.5 years than in those with surveillance interval of ≤1.5 years (93.7% vs. 98.3%, P < 0.001). Similarly, the 5y‐DSS rate of GC was significantly lower in patients with active Hp infection than in those without (93.7% vs. 99.4%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: In this study, a surveillance interval of >1.5 years and current Hp infection were independent risk factors for detecting pT1b or deeper GC. Additionally, these factors were poor prognostic factors of the detected GC during surveillance endoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound surveillance varies between hospitals in the United Kingdom. University Hospitals Bristol and Weston adopt a 6-monthly surveillance interval for 4.5–4.9 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm, which is a deviation from nationally recommended 3-monthly intervals. Assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate, and the concurrent impact of abdominal aortic aneurysm risk factors and medications prescribed for risk factors, may inform whether this change in surveillance intervals is safe and appropriate. Methods: This analysis was conducted retrospectively. A total of 1312 abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound scans from 315 patients between January 2015 and March 2020 were split into 0.5 cm groups, ranging from 3.0 to 5.5 cm. Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was assessed with one-way analysis of variance. The impact of risk factors and risk factor medication on abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was analysed using multivariate and univariate linear regression and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Patient cause of death among surveillance patients was recorded. Results: Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was significantly associated with increased abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter (p < 0.001). There was a significant whole-group reduction in growth rate from 0.29 to 0.19 cm/year in diabetics compared to non-diabetics (p = 0.02), supported by univariate linear regression (p = 0.04). In addition, gliclazide patients had lower growth rate compared to patients not on the medication (p = 0.04). One abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture occurred <5.5 cm resulting in death. Conclusion: Abdominal aortic aneurysm measuring 4.5–4.9 cm had a mean growth rate of 0.3 cm/year (± 0.18 cm/year). Therefore, mean growth rate and variability suggest patients are unlikely to surpass surgical threshold of 5.5 cm between the 6-monthly surveillance scans, supported by low rupture rates. This suggests the surveillance interval for 4.5–4.9 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm is a safe and appropriate deviation from national guidance. In addition, it may be pertinent to consider diabetic status when designing surveillance intervals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An enhanced surveillance schedule has been proposed for cirrhotics with viral etiology, who are considered at extremely high-risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We compared the 3- and 6-months surveillance interval, evaluating cancer stage at diagnosis and patient survival. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There is a lack of consensus on the surveillance strategy for Barcelona Clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage B hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with complete remission (CR). We performed a real-world, retrospective analysis of the surveillance strategy for BCLC stage B HCC patients after radical therapy with CR to support clinical decision-making.Materials and Methods: We analyzed 546 BCLC stage B HCC patients with CR after radical treatments (surgery/ablation) at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, from January 2007 to December 2019. The intensity of surveillance interval was defined as the mean of surveillance interval within 2 years. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) and extra-Milan criteria relapse.Results: During a median follow-up time of 23.9 months (range = 3.1–148.3 months), there were 11.9% of patients died, 56.6% of patients developed recurrence, the vast majority of patients experienced recurrence within 2 years, and 27.8% patients developed extra-Milan criteria recurrence. The median disease-free survival and OS were 33.6 and 60.0 months, respectively. Patients were divided into regular surveillance group (RS) (≤4.3 months) and irregular surveillance (IRS) group (>4.3 months) based on the optimal cutoff value of the intensity of surveillance interval. The RS group owned a lower incident of extra-Milan criteria relapse and smaller and fewer tumors at recurrence than IRS group, which contributed to the prolonged OS. Besides, the cutoff values of surveillance interval that could lead to significant differences in the incidence of extra-Milan criteria relapse during 0–6, 6–12, and 12–18 months after CR were 2.6, 2.9, and 3 months, respectively.Conclusions: The average surveillance interval for patients with BCLC stage B HCC achieved CR should not exceed 4.3 months during the first 2 years' follow-up. During three different phases of the initial 18 months after CR, individualized surveillance showed intervals no more than 3 months were required to reduce the incidence of extra-Milan criteria relapse.

Background/AimsGuidelines 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

Purpose: There is a lack of consensus on the surveillance strategy for Barcelona Clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage B hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with complete remission (CR). We performed a real-world, retrospective analysis of the surveillance strategy for BCLC stage B HCC patients after radical therapy with CR to support clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 546 BCLC stage B HCC patients with CR after radical treatments (surgery/ablation) at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, from January 2007 to December 2019. The intensity of surveillance interval was defined as the mean of surveillance interval within 2 years. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) and extra-Milan criteria relapse. Results: During a median follow-up time of 23.9 months (range = 3.1–148.3 months), there were 11.9% of patients died, 56.6% of patients developed recurrence, the vast majority of patients experienced recurrence within 2 years, and 27.8% patients developed extra-Milan criteria recurrence. The median disease-free survival and OS were 33.6 and 60.0 months, respectively. Patients were divided into regular surveillance group (RS) (≤4.3 months) and irregular surveillance (IRS) group (>4.3 months) based on the optimal cutoff value of the intensity of surveillance interval. The RS group owned a lower incident of extra-Milan criteria relapse and smaller and fewer tumors at recurrence than IRS group, which contributed to the prolonged OS. Besides, the cutoff values of surveillance interval that could lead to significant differences in the incidence of extra-Milan criteria relapse during 0–6, 6–12, and 12–18 months after CR were 2.6, 2.9, and 3 months, respectively. Conclusions: The average surveillance interval for patients with BCLC stage B HCC achieved CR should not exceed 4.3 months during the first 2 years' follow-up. During three different phases of the initial 18 months after CR, individualized surveillance showed intervals no more than 3 months were required to reduce the incidence of extra-Milan criteria relapse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although there have been established guidelines for first surveillance colonoscopy (FSC) after a polypectomy, there is no consensus on performing a second surveillance colonoscopy (SSC), especially in Asian countries. This study aimed to investigate the association of SSC findings with index total colonoscopy (TCS) and FSC results. Methods: This was a single‐center retrospective cohort study involving 1928 consecutive Japanese patients who had received three or more colonoscopies. High‐risk colonoscopic findings were defined as advanced adenoma (≥10 mm in size, with a villous histology or high‐grade dysplasia) or more than three adenomas, whereas low‐risk findings were defined as one to two non‐advanced adenomas. On the basis of index TCS results, the patients were divided into three groups: no adenomas (NA) (n = 888), low‐risk (LR) (n = 476), and high‐risk (HR) (n = 564) groups, respectively. Results: In the NA group, the rate of high‐risk findings on SSC was significantly higher in patients with high‐risk or low‐risk findings on FSC than in those with no adenoma (7.7% and 7.9% vs 2.2%, P < 0.05). Patients in the LR and HR groups with high‐risk findings on FSC had a significantly higher risk on SSC than those with low‐risk findings or no adenoma on FSC (LR group: 28.6%, 9.4%, and 5.9%, respectively, P < 0.01; HR group: 34.5%, 18.8%, and 7.9%, respectively, P < 0.01). Conclusions: Index TCS and especially FSC findings were predictive of SSC results. The study results may be useful for determining appropriate intervals for surveillance colonoscopy in Asian countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Summary: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal. We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method. A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%–9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%–12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%–4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16–1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%–7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%–8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%–2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01–1.47]). The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-colonoscopy surveillance interval for colorectal polyps depends on the size, number, and pathological classification of removed polyps. The risk of sporadic hyperplastic polyps (HPs) for developing colorectal adenocarcinoma remains debatable due to limited data. We aimed to evaluate the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with sporadic HPs. A total of 249 patients with historical HP(s) diagnosed in 2003 were included as the disease group, and 393 patients without any polyp as the control group. All historical HPs were reclassified into SSA or true HP based on the recent 2010 and 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Polyp size was measured under light microscope. Patients developed CRC were identified from the Tumor Registry database. Each tumor was tested for DNA mismatch repair proteins (MMR) by immunohistochemistry. Results showed that 21 (8%) and 48 (19%) historical HPs were reclassified as SSAs based on the 2010 and 2019 WHO criteria, respectively. The mean polyp size of SSAs (6.7 mm) was significantly larger than HPs (3.3 mm) (P<0.0001). For polyp size ≥5 mm, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosing SSA was 90%, 90%, 46%, and 99%, respectively. Left-sided polyps with size <5 mm were 100% of HPs. Five of 249 (2%) patients developed metachronous CRC during the 14-year follow-up from 2003 to 2017, including 2 of 21 (9.5%) patients with SSA diagnosed at intervals of 2.5 and 7 years, and 3 of 228 (1.3%) patients with HP(s) at 7, 10.3, and 11.9 years. Two of 5 cancers showed MMR deficiency with concurrent loss of MLH1/PMS2. Based on the 2019 WHO criteria, the rate of developing metachronous CRC in patients with SSA (P=0.0116) and HP (P=0.0384) was significantly higher than the control group, and no significant difference was observed between patients with SSA and with HP (P=0.241) in this cohort. Patients with either SSA or HP also had higher risk of CRC than average-risk US population (P=0.0002 and 0.0001, respectively). Our data add a new line of evidence that patients with sporadic HP are associated with above-average risk of developing metachronous CRC. Post-polypectomy surveillance for sporadic HP may be adjusted in future practice given the low but increased risk of developing CRC., Competing Interests: None., (AJCR Copyright © 2023.)

Background: Small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs; 3.0–5.4 cm in diameter) are usually asymptomatic and managed by regular ultrasound surveillance until they grow to a diameter threshold (commonly 5.5 cm) at which surgical intervention is considered. The choice of appropriate surveillance intervals is governed by the growth and rupture rates of small AAAs, as well as their relative cost-effectiveness. Objectives: The aim of this series of studies was to inform the evidence base for small AAA surveillance strategies. This was achieved by literature review, collation and analysis of individual patient data, a focus group and health economic modelling. Data sources: We undertook systematic literature reviews of growth rates and rupture rates of small AAAs. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE on OvidSP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2009 Issue 4, ClinicalTrials.gov, and controlled-trials.com were searched from inception up until the end of 2009. We also obtained individual data on 15,475 patients from 18 surveillance studies. Review methods: Systematic reviews of publications identified 15 studies providing small AAA growth rates, and 14 studies with small AAA rupture rates, up to December 2009 (later updated to September 2012). We developed statistical methods to analyse individual surveillance data, including the effects of patient characteristics, to inform the choice of surveillance intervals and provide inputs for health economic modelling. We updated an existing health economic model of AAA screening to address the cost-effectiveness of different surveillance intervals. Results: In the literature reviews, the mean growth rate was 2.3 mm/year and the reported rupture rates varied between 0 and 1.6 ruptures per 100 person-years. Growth rates increased markedly with aneurysm diameter, but insufficient detail was available to guide surveillance intervals. Based on individual surveillance data, for each 0.5-cm increase in AAA diameter, growth rates increased by about 0.5 mm/year and rupture rates doubled. To control the risk of exceeding 5.5 cm to below 10% in men, on average a 7-year surveillance interval is sufficient for a 3.0-cm aneurysm, whereas an 8-month interval is necessary for a 5.0-cm aneurysm. To control the risk of rupture to below 1%, the corresponding estimated surveillance intervals are 9 years and 17 months. Average growth rates were higher in smokers (by 0.35 mm/year) and lower in patients with diabetes (by 0.51 mm/year). Rupture rates were almost fourfold higher in women than men, doubled in current smokers and increased with higher blood pressure. Increasing the surveillance interval from 1 to 2 years for the smallest aneurysms (3.0–4.4 cm) decreased costs and led to a positive net benefit. For the larger aneurysms (4.5–5.4 cm), increasing surveillance intervals from 3 to 6 months led to equivalent cost-effectiveness. Limitations: There were no clear reasons why the growth rates varied substantially between studies. Uniform diagnostic criteria for rupture were not available. The long-term cost-effectiveness results may be susceptible to the modelling assumptions made. Conclusions: Surveillance intervals of several years are clinically acceptable for men with AAAs in the range 3.0–4.0 cm. Intervals of around 1 year are suitable for 4.0–4.9-cm AAAs, whereas intervals of 6 months would be acceptable for 5.0–5.4-cm AAAs. These intervals are longer than those currently employed in the UK AAA screening programmes. Lengthening surveillance intervals for the smallest aneurysms was also shown to be cost-effective. Future work should focus on optimising surveillance intervals for women, studying whether or not the threshold for surgery should depend on patient characteristics, evaluating the usefulness of surveillance for those with aortic diameters of 2.5–2.9 cm, and developing interventions that may reduce the growth or rupture rates of small AAAs. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background/ Aims. Atpresent there are no guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance interval in subjects with unsatisfactory bowel preparation. Study was designed to compare outcomes of repeat colonoscopy at different surveillance intervals in patients with unsatisfactory preparation on index exam. Methods. Ten thousand nine hundred and eight colonoscopies were done during the study period. Patients with index colonoscopy exam complete up to cecum but suboptimal bowel prep were included. Results.Two hundred and ninety-seven patients met the inclusion criteria. The interval for repeat colonoscopy was <1 year in 38.5%, 1-2 years in 33.3%, 2-3 years in 16.7%, and 3-5 years in 11.5% subjects. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 24%, high-risk adenoma detection rate (HR-ADR) was 8.4%, and colorectal cancer detection rate was 1.7%. The HR-ADR based on surveillance intervals <1 year, 1-2 years, 2-3 years, and 3-5 years was 8%, 7.9%, 2%, and 19.4%, respectively. The HR-ADR was significantly higher at surveillance interval 3-5 years ( p < 0.05). Conclusion. Colonoscopies repeated at interval >3 years showed a significant HR-ADR. The study indicates that a surveillance interval of 3 years can be reasonable for subjects having an index colonoscopy with suboptimal/fair/poor bowel prep and complete colon examination. Colonoscopy should be repeated earlier if symptoms develop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progression-free survival (PFS) is an increasingly important surrogate endpoint in cancer clinical trials. However, the true time of progression is typically unknown if the evaluation of progression status is only scheduled at given surveillance intervals. In addition, comparison between treatment arms under different surveillance schema is not uncommon. Our aim is to explore whether the heterogeneity of the surveillance intervals may interfere with the validity of the conclusion of efficacy based on PFS, and the extent to which the variation would bias the results. We conduct comprehensive simulation studies to explore the aforementioned goals in a two-arm randomized control trial. We introduce three steps to simulate survival data with predefined surveillance intervals under different censoring rate considerations. We report the estimated hazard ratios and examine false positive rate, power and bias under different surveillance intervals, given different baseline median PFS, hazard ratio and censoring rate settings. Results show that larger heterogeneous lengths of surveillance intervals lead to higher false positive rate and overestimate the power, and the effect of the heterogeneous surveillance intervals may depend upon both the life expectancy of the tumor prognoses and the censoring proportion of the survival data. We also demonstrate such heterogeneity effect of surveillance intervals on PFS in a phase III metastatic colorectal cancer trial. In our opinions, adherence to consistent surveillance intervals should be favored in designing the comparative trials. Otherwise, it needs to be appropriately taken into account when analyzing data., Competing Interests: This publication is based on research using information obtained from https://data.ProjectDataSphere.org, which is maintained by Project Data Sphere. Neither Project Data Sphere nor the owner(s) of any information from the web site have contributed to, approved or are in any way responsible for the contents of this publication. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Background & Aims: The current guidelines recommend the surveillance of cirrhotic patients for early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), based on liver ultrasonography repetition at either 6 or 12month intervals, since there is no compelling evidence of superiority of the more stringent program. This study aimed at comparing cancer stage, treatment applicability, and survival between patients on semiannual or annual surveillance. Methods: We analyzed the clinical records of 649 HCC patients in Child-Pugh class A or B, observed in ITA.LI.CA centers. HCC was detected in 510 patients submitted to semiannual surveillance (Group 1) and in 139 submitted to annual surveillance (Group 2). In Group 1 the survival was presented as observed and corrected for the lead time. Results: The cancer stage was less severe in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p <0.001), with more single tiny (⩽2cm) and less advanced tumors. Treatment applicability was improved by the semiannual program (p =0.020). The median observed survival was 45months (95% CI 40.0–50.0) in Group 1 and 30months (95% CI 24.0–36.0) in Group 2 (p =0.001). The median corrected survival of Group 1 was 40.3months (95% CI 34.9–45.7) (p =0.028 with respect to the observed survival of Group 2). Age, platelet count, α-fetoprotein, Child-Pugh class, cancer stage, and hepatocellular carcinoma treatment were independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: Semiannual surveillance increases the detection rate of very early hepatocellular carcinomas and reduces the number of advanced tumors as compared to the annual program. This translates into a greater applicability of effective treatments and into a better prognosis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Ultrasonography is the most frequently used modality in surveillance for HCC among patients with chronic hepatitis C. However, the optimal surveillance interval is still controversial and the usefulness of supplementary tumor marker determination has not been confirmed. A total of 243 cases of naive HCC were detected among 1,431 patients with chronic hepatitis C under outpatient-based surveillance. The mode of HCC detection, including ultrasound surveillance interval, was retrospectively examined and the relation between the interval and detected tumor size was analyzed. Tumor volume doubling time was estimated from exponential increase in serum tumor marker levels when applicable. HCC was first detected by ultrasonography in 221 patients. Ultrasound surveillance interval, ranging between 2 and 8 months, was not correlated with the size of tumor at detection. Patients with cirrhosis were likely to be surveyed at shorter intervals. The size of tumor exceeded 30 mm only in three (1.4%) cases. They were all positive for a biomarker and the estimated tumor doubling time was short. In 14 cases, HCC was first detected by CT indicated by abnormal rise in tumor marker levels despite negative ultrasound findings. In the remaining eight cases, ultrasonography had been replaced by CT as surveillance modality because of excessive obesity or coarseness of liver parenchyma. Ultrasound surveillance at 6-month intervals was appropriate in general for the detection of HCC at a size smaller than 30 mm. However, in patient with established cirrhosis, more frequent screening would be needed to detect tumors of the same size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Three thousand five hundred and forty-nine patients are waiting for a colonoscopy in the Kent and Medway cancer network. New guidelines identify those who require surveillance for polyp, cancer, IBD and family history. Our hypothesis was that most of the patients on the waiting list would no longer need a colonoscopy if the new guidelines were applied. Patients and methods We compared the ACPGBI guidelines for screening/surveillance colonoscopy with the indications in 411 notes of one hospital's waiting list and removed patients as appropriate. In the second part of study we analysed 192 patients attending colonoscopy in seven hospitals in the region and calculated the potential impact of the guidelines on our waiting lists. Results Of 411 patients on the waiting list in one hospital, only 98 (24%) needed to remain on the list. 142 (34%) were cancelled completely. One hundred and seventy-one (42%) were taken off the ‘waiting’ list and rebooked for a later date since according to the new guidelines the colonoscopy was not due yet. Of 192 colonoscopies actually performed during the study period in 7 hospitals of Kent and Medway cancer network, 72 (38%) were for surveillance. Two thirds of those were not in line with the guidelines. As a result of implementing the guidelines, waiting times for diagnostic colonoscopy fell from 12 to 4 weeks for urgent, and from 40 to 15 weeks for routine referrals. Conclusion A quarter of the 8000 colonoscopies performed annually in our region are unnecessary when compared to the guidelines. More than three quarters of our waiting list could be removed by reviewing the notes. Implementing the guidelines in one cancer network would save £1 million per year even on conservative estimates of £500 per colonoscopy. It would also reduce the waiting times for diagnostic colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There have been a few evidence-based studies concerning the relationship between the length of the surveillance interval of colonoscopic examinations and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of the present study was to assess the appropriate interval between endoscopic examinations for CRC screening in a retrospective cohort study. Methods: The cohort included subjects in whom cancer was not detected at the initial endoscopic examination and in whom endoscopic examination(s) was subsequently performed one or more times. The results of the endoscopic examinations performed in the mass screening for CRC between November 1983 and March 1999 were analyzed. The study end point was the detection of CRC and the detection rates of cancer were assessed among those who underwent examinations at various intervals between successive endoscopic examinations. Results: Among the 117 636 cohort subjects, 63 invasive cancer cases and 112 mucosal cancer cases were found. The odds ratio (OR) for invasive cancer was not significantly elevated even when the interval between successive examinations was over 5 years. The OR for mucosal or invasive cancer was significantly elevated among the subjects in whom the interval between successive examinations was over 5 years (OR, 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–2.73), than among those in whom the interval was 1 year. Conclusions: Since prolongation of the interval between endoscopic examinations of up to 5 years did not result in any change in the cancer risk among persons who are at average risk for CRC, 5 years may be an adequate interval between endoscopic examinations in the mass screening for CRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.