Literature DB >> 15109378

High compliance rates observed for follow up colonoscopy post polypectomy are achievable outside of clinical trials: efficacy of polypectomy is not reduced by low compliance for follow up.

P Colquhoun1, H-C Chen, Jong Ik Kim, J Efron, E G Weiss, J J Nogueras, A M Vernava, S D Wexner.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The National Polyp Study demonstrated that removal of adenomas with at least a three-year follow up reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer. However, compliance with follow up colonoscopy may affect the estimates of reduction in colorectal cancer incidence demonstrated by the National Polyp Study. While an 80% compliance rate for follow up colonoscopy was achieved during the National Polyp Study, the compliance rate for follow up colonoscopy is unknown in the general population. The aim of this study was to determine the compliance rate for follow up colonoscopy and factors which affect follow up.
METHODS: A retrospective medical record review to identify patients who had adenomatous polyps excised in 1997 was undertaken. Patients who had inflammatory bowel disease, a prior history of colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome, colonic surgery; incomplete polypectomy or incomplete colonoscopy, and those patients who died before planned follow up, were excluded from analysis. Follow up was performed by telephone survey.
RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-three patients were identified (196 males; 147 females) with a mean age of 70 years. Three hundred and thirty-one (99%) of 333 had a documented recommendation for follow up of three years or less. Thirty-four percent (113 of 333) had previously undergone colonoscopy; 29% (98 of 333) had previously undergone polypectomy and 54% (180 of 333) were symptomatic at the time of the colonoscopy. Twenty-eight percent (40 of 141) had a family history of colorectal cancer. Pathology at polypectomy included a single polyp and polyps less than 10 mm in 68% and 88% of cases, respectively. Follow up was available in 211 of these cases, 179 (85%) of which had been compliant with follow up colonoscopy. In a univariate analysis, previous colonoscopy (P = 0.035), previous polyps (P = 0.043), asymptomatic status at time of colonoscopy (P = 0.021), polyp size (P = 0.008) and number of polyps (P = 0.010) were significantly associated with patients who were compliant with follow up colonoscopy. A multivariate logistics regression analysis revealed number of polyps (P = 0.036) and polyp size (P = 0.045) to be statistically significantly associated with compliance.
CONCLUSION: Compliance with follow up colonoscopy after polypectomy is greater than 80%, regardless of age, education, family history, prior colonoscopy, or prior polypectomy. Risk reduction published in the National Polyp Study may likely reflect what can be achieved through the general use of colonoscopy for surveillance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15109378     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00585.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  15 in total

1.  Optimising the expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Dayna R Cenin; D James B St John; Melissa J N Ledger; Terry Slevin; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 7.738

2.  Compliance and Satisfaction with Long-Term Surveillance in Finnish HNPCC Families.

Authors:  Kirsi Pylvänäinen; Matti Kairaluoma; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Value Of Waiving Coinsurance For Colorectal Cancer Screening In Medicare Beneficiaries.

Authors:  Elisabeth F P Peterse; Reinier G S Meester; Andrea Gini; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Franklin G Berger; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.

Authors:  Dayna R Cenin; Steffie K Naber; Anne C de Weerdt; Mark A Jenkins; David B Preen; Hooi C Ee; Peter C O'Leary; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Physician recommendations and patient adherence after inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Reena V Chokshi; Christine E Hovis; Graham A Colditz; Dayna S Early; Jean S Wang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Knowledge of Polyp History and Recommended Follow-Up Among a Predominately African American Patient Population and the Impact of Patient Navigation.

Authors:  Cassandra Fritz; Keith Naylor; Karen Kim
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2015-09-03

7.  The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.

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

8.  Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History.

Authors:  Dayna R Cenin; Jill Tinmouth; Steffie K Naber; Catherine Dubé; Bronwen R McCurdy; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 11.382

9.  Cost-effectiveness of one versus two sample faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  S Lucas Goede; Aafke H C van Roon; Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink; Anneke J van Vuuren; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; J Dik F Habbema; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 10.  Importance of postpolypectomy surveillance and postpolypectomy compliance to follow-up screening--review of literature.

Authors:  Sri Rapuri; Jeanne Spencer; Dennis Eckels
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.