BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy may be less efficacious in reducing colorectal cancer mortality in the proximal compared with the distal colon. A greater likelihood for missed and recurrent adenomas in the proximal colon may contribute to this phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a proximal adenoma is associated with the risk and location of missed and recurrent adenomas. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Polyp Prevention Trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1864 patients with an adenoma at baseline underwent a follow-up colonoscopy 4 years later (adenoma recurrence). Of these, 1731 underwent a clearing colonoscopy 1 year after the baseline examination (missed adenoma). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Association of baseline adenoma location with the risk and location of adenomas found at colonoscopy performed 1 year and 4 years later. RESULTS: At the year 1 colonoscopy, 598 patients (34.6%) had an adenoma (missed adenoma). Compared with those with a distal-only adenoma at baseline, patients with a proximal-only adenoma at baseline were more likely to have any missed adenomas (relative risk [RR] 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.49) and a proximal-only missed adenoma (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.49-2.80). At the year 4 colonoscopy, 733 patients (39.3%) had adenoma recurrence. Patients with a baseline proximal-only adenoma were more likely to have any adenoma recurrence (RR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.31) and a proximal-only adenoma recurrence (RR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.02). Sensitivity analyses involving missed adenomas did not materially affect the risk or location of recurrent adenomas at year 4 colonoscopy. LIMITATION: Lesions may still be missed on repeated colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: Missed and recurrent adenomas are more likely to be in the proximal colon.
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy may be less efficacious in reducing colorectal cancer mortality in the proximal compared with the distal colon. A greater likelihood for missed and recurrent adenomas in the proximal colon may contribute to this phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a proximal adenoma is associated with the risk and location of missed and recurrent adenomas. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING:Polyp Prevention Trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1864 patients with an adenoma at baseline underwent a follow-up colonoscopy 4 years later (adenoma recurrence). Of these, 1731 underwent a clearing colonoscopy 1 year after the baseline examination (missed adenoma). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Association of baseline adenoma location with the risk and location of adenomas found at colonoscopy performed 1 year and 4 years later. RESULTS: At the year 1 colonoscopy, 598 patients (34.6%) had an adenoma (missed adenoma). Compared with those with a distal-only adenoma at baseline, patients with a proximal-only adenoma at baseline were more likely to have any missed adenomas (relative risk [RR] 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.49) and a proximal-only missed adenoma (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.49-2.80). At the year 4 colonoscopy, 733 patients (39.3%) had adenoma recurrence. Patients with a baseline proximal-only adenoma were more likely to have any adenoma recurrence (RR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.31) and a proximal-only adenoma recurrence (RR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.02). Sensitivity analyses involving missed adenomas did not materially affect the risk or location of recurrent adenomas at year 4 colonoscopy. LIMITATION: Lesions may still be missed on repeated colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: Missed and recurrent adenomas are more likely to be in the proximal colon.
Authors: A Schatzkin; E Lanza; L S Freedman; J Tangrea; M R Cooper; J R Marshall; P A Murphy; J V Selby; M Shike; R R Schade; R W Burt; J W Kikendall; J Cahill Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: E Lanza; A Schatzkin; R Ballard-Barbash; D Corle; C Clifford; E Paskett; D Hayes; E Bote; B Caan; M Shike; J Weissfeld; M Slattery; D Mateski; C Daston; D C Clifford Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sidney J Winawer; 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 Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jeroen C van Rijn; Johannes B Reitsma; Jaap Stoker; Patrick M Bossuyt; Sander J van Deventer; Evelien Dekker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: D K Rex; C S Cutler; G T Lemmel; E Y Rahmani; D W Clark; D J Helper; G A Lehman; D G Mark Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Elizabeth T Jacobs; María Elena Martínez; David S Alberts; Ruiyun Jiang; Peter Lance; Kimberly A Lowe; Patricia A Thompson Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Martin Goetz; Arthur Hoffman; Peter Robert Galle Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Eduardo Coghlan; Luis Laferrere; Elisa Zenon; Juan Manuel Marini; German Rainero; Alberto San Roman; Maria Lourdes Posadas Martinez; Angel Nadales Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Chyke Doubeni; Paul F Pinsky; V Paul Doria-Rose; Pamela M Marcus; Robert E Schoen; Elaine Lanza; Amanda J Cross Journal: Digestion Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.216
Authors: Amy R Marks; Ralph A Pietrofesa; Christopher D Jensen; Alexis Zebrowski; Douglas A Corley; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heiko Pohl; Douglas J Robertson; Leila A Mott; Dennis J Ahnen; Carol A Burke; Elizabeth L Barry; Robert S Bresalier; Jane C Figueiredo; Aasma Shaukat; Robert S Sandler; John A Baron Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 9.427