Literature DB >> 21698368

Recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance in community practice.

David F Ransohoff1, Bonnie Yankaskas, Ziya Gizlice, Lisa Gangarosa.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: After colon cancer screening, large numbers of persons discovered with colon polyps may receive post-polypectomy surveillance with multiple colonoscopy examinations over time. Decisions about surveillance interval are based in part on polyp size, histology, and number. AIMS: To learn physicians' recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance from physicians' office charts.
METHODS: Among 322 physicians performing colonoscopy in 126 practices in N. Carolina, offices of 152 physicians in 55 practices were visited to extract chart data, for each physician, on 125 consecutive persons having colonoscopy in 2003. Subjects included persons with first-time colonoscopy and no positive family history or other indication beyond colonoscopy findings that might affect post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations. Data were extracted about demographics, reason for colonoscopy, family history, symptoms, bowel prep, extent of examination, and features of each polyp including location, size, histology. Recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance were noted.
RESULTS: Among 10,089 first-time colonoscopy examinations, hyperplastic polyps were found in 4.5% of subjects, in whom follow-up by 4-6 years was recommended in 24%, sooner than recommended in guidelines. Of the 6.6% of persons with only small adenomas, 35% were recommended to return in 1-3 years (sooner than recommended in some guidelines) and 77% by 6 years. Surveillance interval tended to be shorter if colon prep was less than "excellent." Prep quality was not reported for 32% of examinations.
CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance intervals after polypectomy of low-risk polyps may be more aggressive than guidelines recommend. The quality of post-polypectomy surveillance might be improved by increased attention to guidelines, bowel prep, and reporting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21698368      PMCID: PMC3199324          DOI: 10.1007/s10620-011-1791-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  29 in total

1.  Screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Robert S Rosson; Howard M Spiro
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of medicare coverage for average-risk screening.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; David A Lieberman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  Colon cancer screening in 2005: status and challenges.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Colonoscopy in the screening and surveillance of individuals at increased risk for colorectal cancer. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  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

Review 6.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

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

7.  Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians.

Authors:  Vikram Boolchand; Gregory Olds; Joseph Singh; Pankaj Singh; Amitabh Chak; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-11-07       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool.

Authors:  A R Williams; B A Balasooriya; D W Day
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 9.  Polyp guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance for patients with nonfamilial colorectal polyps. The Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Authors:  J H Bond
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  The prevalence of polyps of the large intestine in Oslo: an autopsy study.

Authors:  M H Vatn; H Stalsberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1982-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  27 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.  How can the over-use of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy be modified?

Authors:  Sung Pil Hong; Won Ho Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Elyse R Johnston; Dyanna L Gregory; Jody D Ciolino; Andrew Cooper; Rajesh N Keswani
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Adherence to recommended intervals for surveillance colonoscopy in average-risk patients with 1 to 2 small (<1 cm) polyps on screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Stacy B Menees; Eric Elliott; Shail Govani; Constantinos Anastassiades; Philip Schoenfeld
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; John A Baron; Dennis J Ahnen; Elizabeth L Barry; Roberd M Bostick; Carol A Burke; Robert S Bresalier; Timothy R Church; Bernard F Cole; Marcia Cruz-Correa; Adam S Kim; Leila A Mott; Robert S Sandler; Douglas J Robertson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men.

Authors:  Brian T Clark; Petr Protiva; Anil Nagar; Avlin Imaeda; Maria M Ciarleglio; Yanhong Deng; Loren Laine
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Physician recommendations and patient adherence after inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Reena V Chokshi; Christine E Hovis; Graham A Colditz; Dayna S Early; Jean S Wang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  One-year risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia: U.S. versus U.K. risk-stratification guidelines.

Authors:  María Elena Martínez; Patricia Thompson; Karen Messer; Erin L Ashbeck; David A Lieberman; John A Baron; Dennis J Ahnen; Douglas J Robertson; Elizabeth T Jacobs; E Robert Greenberg; Amanda J Cross; Wendy Atkin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Corey H Basch; Benjamin Lebwohl; Charles E Basch; Fay Kastrinos; Beverly J Insel; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-08-12       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Screening patterns in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer often do not adhere to national guidelines.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Michael Gluck; Matthew Nguyen; Johannes Koch; Richard A Kozarek
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.