BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the USA and many other countries, endoscopic surveillance of colorectal adenoma patients is now widely practised. However, the optimal frequency and mode of such surveillance are not yet established. The aim of this trial was to compare surveillance at one, two, or five year intervals using either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. METHODS: Analysis of a randomised trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy over one, two, or five years after stratification for "high" or "low" risk of recurrent adenomas. The trial started in 1984. RESULTS: A total of 776 patients were stratified into "high" (n=307) and "low" (n=469) recurrence risk groups and randomised toflexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at varying intervals. Only 81 recurrent adenomas (30/81 were >1 cm in diameter) were detected in the 2307 person years of follow up within the surveillance study. Adenoma recurrence was significantly higher in the high risk group (relative rate 1.82; 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.9) but recurrence rates per 1000 person years were low and not significantly different in those surveyed by colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy. Loss to follow up was greatest in those having an annual examination compared with two or five yearly surveillance examinations. Despite surveillance, invasive cancer developed in four patients compared with an expected value of 9.12 for the general population in England (p=0.10); of these four patients who developed cancers, only one was detected by surveillance examination. CONCLUSIONS:Adenoma recurrence rates were much lower than expected in both high and low risk groups. This suggests that endoscopic surveillance should be targeted at high risk groups. A surveillance interval of five years was as effective as shorter intervals in terms of cancer prevention, and was associated with similar compliance to two yearly examinations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the USA and many other countries, endoscopic surveillance of colorectal adenomapatients is now widely practised. However, the optimal frequency and mode of such surveillance are not yet established. The aim of this trial was to compare surveillance at one, two, or five year intervals using either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. METHODS: Analysis of a randomised trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy over one, two, or five years after stratification for "high" or "low" risk of recurrent adenomas. The trial started in 1984. RESULTS: A total of 776 patients were stratified into "high" (n=307) and "low" (n=469) recurrence risk groups and randomised to flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at varying intervals. Only 81 recurrent adenomas (30/81 were >1 cm in diameter) were detected in the 2307 person years of follow up within the surveillance study. Adenoma recurrence was significantly higher in the high risk group (relative rate 1.82; 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.9) but recurrence rates per 1000 person years were low and not significantly different in those surveyed by colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy. Loss to follow up was greatest in those having an annual examination compared with two or five yearly surveillance examinations. Despite surveillance, invasive cancer developed in four patients compared with an expected value of 9.12 for the general population in England (p=0.10); of these four patients who developed cancers, only one was detected by surveillance examination. CONCLUSIONS:Adenoma recurrence rates were much lower than expected in both high and low risk groups. This suggests that endoscopic surveillance should be targeted at high risk groups. A surveillance interval of five years was as effective as shorter intervals in terms of cancer prevention, and was associated with similar compliance to two yearly examinations.
Authors: D K Rex; C S Cutler; G T Lemmel; E Y Rahmani; D W Clark; D J Helper; G A Lehman; D G Mark Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Neal Mehta; Ashraf Abushahin; Meena Sadaps; Mohammad Alomari; John Vargo; Deepa Patil; Rocio Lopez; Matthew Kalady; Conor P Delaney; Emre Gorgun; James Church; Yutaka Saito; Carol A Burke; Amit Bhatt Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Paul Tappenden; James Chilcott; Simon Eggington; Julietta Patnick; Hannah Sakai; Jonathon Karnon Journal: Gut Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; David A Lieberman; Sidney J Winawer; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Arthur Schatzkin; Amanda J Cross; Ann G Zauber; Timothy R Church; Peter Lance; E Robert Greenberg; María Elena Martínez Journal: Gut Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Stacy B Menees; H Myra Kim; Eric E Elliott; Jennifer L Mickevicius; Brittany B Graustein; Philip S Schoenfeld Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Bernardette Bonello; Alex Ghanouni; Harriet L Bowyer; Eilidh MacRae; Wendy Atkin; Stephen P Halloran; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 3.067