Literature DB >> 17279350

Follow-up after colorectal polypectomy: a benefit-risk analysis of German surveillance recommendations.

F Becker1, G Nusko, J Welke, E G Hahn, U Mansmann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: For colorectal screening patients a mean gain of life time was previously calculated of about 30-50 days. Different recommendations for recognising at-risk groups and defining surveillance intervals after an initial finding of colorectal adenomas have been published. However, no benefit-risk analysis regarding to specific long-term effects of follow-up has been reported to date.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model based on time-dependent transition possibilities was developed to perform a benefit-risk analysis of the risk-related surveillance recommendations based on the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Polyps (ERCRP) in comparison with the recommendation of the German Society of Gastrointestinal Diseases and Nutrition (DGVS). The outcome was calculated for a 50-year-old patient with 30 years of follow-up after initial polypectomy. The data used in this model were taken from different sources, namely the ERCRP, the German Study Group of Colorectal Cancer, the German Statistical Yearbook, and from meta-analyses of studies reporting data on complications and sensitivity of colonoscopy.
RESULTS: Patients under surveillance have a mean lifetime gain of 98 (ERCRP) and 110 (DGVS) days compared with those who do not come for surveillance. 84% and 94% of deaths from colorectal carcinoma (CRC) could be prevented if patients were followed up according to the recommendations of the ERCRP and the DGVS, respectively. Less colonoscopies are needed to prevent one death from CRC following the recommendations of the ERCRP (221) than those of the DGVS (283). The risk of death due to colonoscopy for patients during follow-up is about 0.05% lifetime risk. Sensitivity analysis showed the stability of the results under a wide range of reasonable variations of relevant parameters. In a pessimistic one-way sensitivity analysis regarding compliance, effectiveness was reduced to one third.
CONCLUSION: Surveillance using colonoscopy is an effective tool for preventing CRC after colorectal polypectomy, especially if a good compliance is assumed. The effectiveness is higher following the recommendations of the DGVS, but more colonoscopies are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17279350     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-006-0252-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.796


  77 in total

1.  [Complications of diagnostic and interventional colonoscopy].

Authors:  R Puchner; S Allinger; F Doblhofer; M Wallner; P Knoflach
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale.

Authors:  S J Winawer; R H Fletcher; L Miller; F Godlee; M H Stolar; C D Mulrow; S H Woolf; S N Glick; T G Ganiats; J H Bond; L Rosen; J G Zapka; S J Olsen; F M Giardiello; J E Sisk; R Van Antwerp; C Brown-Davis; D A Marciniak; R J Mayer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Comparison of barium enema nad colonoscopy in the detection of small colonic polyps.

Authors:  R F Thoeni; L Menuck
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in the Federal Republic of Germany. Results of an inquiry.

Authors:  P Frühmorgen; L Demling
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 10.093

5.  Evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum.

Authors:  B C Morson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1974-09       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Actual colonoscopy: what are the risks of perforation?

Authors:  D Q Tran; L Rosen; R Kim; R D Riether; J J Stasik; I T Khubchandani
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 0.688

7.  Estimates of costs and effects of screening for colorectal cancer in the United States.

Authors:  T Byers; R Gorsky
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1992-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Towards safer colonoscopy: a report on the complications of 5000 diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopies.

Authors:  F A Macrae; K G Tan; C B Williams
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  [Results of coloscopy screening in 2005--an Internet-based documentation].

Authors:  A Sieg; A Theilmeier
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2006-02-24       Impact factor: 0.628

10.  Colonoscopy: a prospective report of complications.

Authors:  J D Waye; B S Lewis; S Yessayan
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.062

View more
  4 in total

1.  Epidemiology and quality control of 245 000 outpatient colonoscopies.

Authors:  Ulrich Mansmann; Alexander Crispin; Volkmar Henschel; Christine Adrion; Volker Augustin; Berndt Birkner; Axel Munte
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Streptococcus anginosus pyogenic liver abscess following a screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Francis Bonenfant; Etienne Rousseau; Paul Farand
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.471

3.  Risk of advanced metachronous colorectal adenoma during long-term follow-up.

Authors:  G Nusko; E G Hahn; U Mansmann
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-07-03       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Adherence to physician recommendations for surveillance in opportunistic colorectal cancer screening: the necessity of organized surveillance.

Authors:  Christian Stock; Bernd Holleczek; Michael Hoffmeister; Thomas Stolz; Christa Stegmaier; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.