Literature DB >> 16737947

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 uncovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or have a diagnostic workup for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas as well as missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which demonstrated 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 be 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003, these guidelines were updated, colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, and stratification at baseline into lower 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 demonstrated that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present paper, a careful analytic approach was designed addressing all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be more definitely stratified at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either three or more adenomas, or high-grade dysplasia, or villous features, or an adenoma > or =1 cm in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have one or two small (< 1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up in 5 to 10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up as average-risk people. Recent papers 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 utilization of the recommendations by endoscopists. 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: 16737947     DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.56.3.143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin        ISSN: 0007-9235            Impact factor:   508.702


  99 in total

1.  Predictors of Poor Adherence of US Gastroenterologists with Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines.

Authors:  Heba Iskandar; Yan Yan; Jill Elwing; Dayna Early; Graham A Colditz; Jean S Wang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Recurrence after endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection for large sessile colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Guh Jung Seo; Dae Kyung Sohn; Kyung Su Han; Chang Won Hong; Byung Chang Kim; Ji Won Park; Hyo Seong Choi; Hee Jin Chang; Jae Hwan Oh
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  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

4.  How should individuals with a false-positive fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer be managed? A decision analysis.

Authors:  Ulrike Haug; Amy B Knudsen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Recurrence and surveillance of colorectal adenoma after polypectomy in a southern Chinese population.

Authors:  Yinglong Huang; Wei Gong; Bingzhong Su; Fachao Zhi; Side Liu; Yang Bai; Bo Jiang
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 7.527

6.  A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy.

Authors:  María Elena Martínez; John A Baron; David A Lieberman; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Ruiyun Jiang; Dennis J Ahnen; John H Bond; Timothy R Church; Douglas J Robertson; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Elizabeth T Jacobs; David S Alberts; E Robert Greenberg
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Resource implications for a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Canada: a study of the impact on colonoscopy capacity and costs in London, Ontario.

Authors:  Agatha Lau; James C Gregor
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.522

8.  Differences with experienced nurse assistance during colonoscopy in detecting polyp and adenoma: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Weihong Wang; Lu Xu; Zhenfei Bao; Linyin Sun; Chunyan Hu; Feng Zhou; Lei Xu; Dingmei Shi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Effect of rising chemotherapy costs on the cost savings of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; J Dik F Habbema; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Repeat colonoscopy's value in gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Parit Mekaroonkamol; Kimberly Jegel Chaput; Young Kwang Chae; Michael L Davis; Pojnicha Mekaroonkamol; Sherry Pomerantz; Philip O Katz
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-02-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.