Literature DB >> 14994108

Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps.

James M Church1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Since the concept of "advanced" or "dangerous" adenomas was introduced in 1992, less concern has been directed to diminutive colorectal adenomas. They apparently confer no increased risk of metachronous colorectal cancer and some investigators have suggested that they need neither follow-up nor treatment. This study is intended to discover how often small colorectal adenomas have unfavorable histologic features.
METHODS: Since 1995 the details of all colorectal polyps have been entered into a database, along with data concerning patients, symptoms, treatment, and outcome. Using this database all adenomas were categorized into three groups: Group I, <6 mm diameter, Group II, 6 to 10 mm diameter, and Group III, >10 mm diameter. "High risk" adenomas were defined as those containing >25 percent villous architecture, those with severe dysplasia, and those over 10 mm in size. Thus all Group III adenomas are high-risk by definition. The effects of family history, patient age, and polyp location on the proportions of Group I and Group II adenomas that were histologically high risk were examined.
RESULTS: There were 5,722 polyps of which 4,381 (76.6 percent) were Group I, 666 (11.6 percent) were Group II, and 675 (11.8 percent) were Group III. These included 24 invasive cancers (2 in Group I, 1 in Group II, and 21 in Group III. Of the Group I adenomas, 91/2,064 (4.4 percent) were high risk compared to 65/417 (15.6 percent) in Group II. Of the 564 Group III adenomas, 326 (57.8 percent) had unfavorable histology. There was no effect of age, family history, or site of the polyp on the proportion of polyps that were high risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Four percent of adenomas less than 6 mm diameter and 16 percent of those between 6 and 10 mm have unfavorable histology. Small adenomas can still be clinically significant and should not be ignored. Since the concept of "advanced" or "dangerous" adenomas was introduced in 1992, less concern has been directed to diminutive colorectal adenomas. They apparently confer no increased risk of metachronous colorectal cancer and some investigators have suggested that they need neither follow-up nor treatment. This study is intended to discover how often small colorectal adenomas have unfavorable histologic features.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14994108     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-003-0078-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  47 in total

1.  Implementation of colonoscopic process measures: does it improve quality?

Authors:  Theodor Asgeirsson; Anthony J Senagore; Nadav Dujovny; Rebecca Hoedema; Donald Kim; Heather Slay; Martin Luchtefeld
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Virtual colonoscopy vs optical colonoscopy.

Authors:  Zhengrong Liang; Robert Richards
Journal:  Expert Opin Med Diagn       Date:  2010-03-01

3.  An evidence-based microsimulation model for colorectal cancer: validation and application.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Colonic carcinoma resembling submucosal tumor: report of a case and review of the literature.

Authors:  T Nakajima; T Kamano; K Shibasaki; K Watanabe; H Meguro; Y Tomiki; S Kasamaki; M Adachi; Y Watanabe
Journal:  Int J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2005

5.  The influence of waiting times on cost-effectiveness: a case study of colorectal cancer mass screening.

Authors:  Pauline Chauvin; Jean-Michel Josselin; Denis Heresbach
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-08-22

6.  Utility of computed tomographic colonography in surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome.

Authors:  Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Arto Kivisaari; Leena Kivisaari; Seppo Sarna; Heikki J Järvinen
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Pauline Chauvin; Jean-Michel Josselin; Denis Heresbach
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-02-09

8.  Colorectal cancer: managing diminutive polyps-what is the optimal approach?

Authors:  David H Kim; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 46.802

9.  Role of low-dose, noncontrast computed tomography from integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography in evaluating incidental 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-avid colon lesions.

Authors:  S T Lee; T Tan; A M T Poon; H B Toh; S Gill; S U Berlangieri; E Kraft; A J Byrne; K Pathmaraj; G J O'Keefe; N Tebbutt; A M Scott
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2007-11-10       Impact factor: 3.488

10.  Colon cancer screening update and management of the malignant polyp.

Authors:  James M Church
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2005-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.