Literature DB >> 16697750

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

Sidney J Winawer1, Ann G Zauber, Robert H Fletcher, Jonathon S Stillman, Michael J O'Brien, Bernard Levin, Robert A Smith, David A Lieberman, Randall W Burt, Theodore R Levin, John H Bond, Durado Brooks, Tim Byers, Neil Hyman, Lynne Kirk, Alan Thorson, Clifford Simmang, David Johnson, Douglas K Rex.   

Abstract

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings discovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which showed clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance take place 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003 these guidelines were updated and colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, stratification at baseline into low risk and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have shown that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was designed to address all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be stratified more definitely at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower risk or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either 3 or more adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or an adenoma 1 cm or larger in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have 1 or 2 small (<1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up evaluation in 5-10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up evaluation, as for average-risk people. There have been recent studies that have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase the use of the recommendations by endoscopists. The adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16697750     DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.03.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  188 in total

1.  Colonoscopy: Colorectal cancer screening is a 'package'.

Authors:  Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 46.802

2.  Factors associated with adherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval.

Authors:  Eun Ran Kim; Dong Hyun Sinn; Jin Yong Kim; Dong Kyung Chang; Poong-Lyul Rhee; Jae J Kim; Jong Chul Rhee; Young-Ho Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  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

4.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  The quality of colonoscopy services--responsibilities of referring clinicians: a consensus statement of the Quality Assurance Task Group, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

Authors:  Robert H Fletcher; Marion R Nadel; John I Allen; Jason A Dominitz; Douglas O Faigel; David A Johnson; Dorothy S Lane; David Lieberman; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; Deborah P Robin; Paul C Schroy; Robert A Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Colorectal Cancer OncoGuia.

Authors:  Paula Manchon Walsh; Josep M Borràs; Tàrsila Ferro; Josep Alfons Espinàs
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.405

7.  The first year follow-up after colorectal adenoma polypectomy is important: a multiple-center study in symptomatic hospital-based individuals in China.

Authors:  Qin-Yan Gao; Hui-Min Chen; Jian-Qiu Sheng; Ping Zheng; Cheng-Gong Yu; Bo Jiang; Jing-Yuan Fang
Journal:  Front Med China       Date:  2010-12-02

Review 8.  Colorectal cancer screening quality, cost and practice in an era of healthcare transformation.

Authors:  Martin Brotman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Selection and adaptation during metastatic cancer progression.

Authors:  Christoph A Klein
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Risk of Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia in Patients With Multiple Diminutive Adenomas.

Authors:  Jung Yoon Kim; Tae Jun Kim; Sun-Young Baek; Soohyun Ahn; Eun Ran Kim; Sung Noh Hong; Dong Kyung Chang; Young-Ho Kim
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 10.864

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.