Literature DB >> 17698067

Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy.

David A Lieberman1, David G Weiss, William V Harford, Dennis J Ahnen, Dawn Provenzale, Stephen J Sontag, Thomas G Schnell, Gregorio Chejfec, Donald R Campbell, Jayashri Kidao, John H Bond, Douglas B Nelson, George Triadafilopoulos, Francisco C Ramirez, Judith F Collins, Tiina K Johnston, Kenneth R McQuaid, Harinder Garewal, Richard E Sampliner, Romeo Esquivel, Douglas Robertson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Outcomes of colon surveillance after colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy are uncertain. We conducted a prospective study to measure incidence of advanced neoplasia in patients within 5.5 years of screening colonoscopy.
METHODS: Three thousand one hundred twenty-one asymptomatic subjects, age 50 to 75 years, had screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997 in the Department of Veterans Affairs. One thousand one hundred seventy-one subjects with neoplasia and 501 neoplasia-free controls were assigned to colonoscopic surveillance over 5 years. Cohorts were defined by baseline findings. Relative risks for advanced neoplasia within 5.5 years were calculated. Advanced neoplasia was defined as tubular adenoma greater than > or =10 mm, adenoma with villous histology, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer.
RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety-five (76.4%) patients with neoplasia and 298 subjects (59.5%) without neoplasia at baseline had colonoscopy within 5.5 years; 2.4% of patients with no neoplasia had interval advanced neoplasia. The relative risk in patients with baseline neoplasia was 1.92 (95% CI: 0.83-4.42) with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 5.01 (95% CI: 2.10-11.96) with 3 or more tubular adenomas <10 mm, 6.40 (95% CI: 2.74-14.94) with tubular adenoma > or =10 mm, 6.05 (95% CI: 2.48-14.71) for villous adenoma, and 6.87 (95% CI: 2.61-18.07) for adenoma with high-grade dysplasia.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between results of baseline screening colonoscopy and rate of serious incident lesions during 5.5 years of surveillance. Patients with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas less than 10 mm represent a low-risk group compared with other patients with colon neoplasia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17698067     DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.07.006

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


  139 in total

1.  Narrow band imaging to detect residual or recurrent neoplastic tissue during surveillance endoscopy.

Authors:  Jason N Rogart; Harry R Aslanian; Uzma D Siddiqui
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 3.199

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.  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

5.  AMACR is associated with advanced pathologic risk factors in sporadic colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Sotiris Lakis; Theodora Papamitsou; Constantina Panagiotopoulou; Rodoula Kotakidou; Vassiliki Kotoula
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 5.742

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.  Repeat colonoscopy after a colonoscopy with a negative result in Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Lieke Hol; Rinku Sutradhar; Sumei Gu; Nancy N Baxter; Linda Rabeneck; Jill M Tinmouth; Lawrence F Paszat
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-04-02

8.  Assessing the effectiveness of a cancer screening test in the presence of another screening modality.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Rebecca A Hubbard; Eric Johnson; Aruna Kamineni; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.