Literature DB >> 23247939

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

María Elena Martínez1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines from the United Kingdom and the United States on risk stratification after polypectomy differ, as do recommended surveillance intervals.
OBJECTIVE: To compare risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia at 1-year colonoscopy among patients cross-classified by U.S. and U.K. surveillance guidelines.
DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 4 prospective studies between 1984 and 1998.
SETTING: Academic and private clinics in the United States. PATIENTS: 3226 postpolypectomy patients with 6- to 18-month follow-up colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of advanced neoplasia (an adenoma ≥1 cm, high-grade dysplasia, >25% villous architecture, or invasive cancer) at 1 year, compared across U.S. and U.K. risk categories.
RESULTS: Advanced neoplasia was detected 1 year after polypectomy in 3.8% (95% CI, 2.7% to 4.9%) of lower-risk patients and 11.2% (CI, 9.8% to 12.6%) of higher-risk patients by U.S. criteria. According to U.K. criteria, 4.4% (CI, 3.3% to 5.4%) of low-risk patients, 9.9% (CI, 8.3% to 11.5%) of intermediate-risk patients, and 18.7% (CI, 14.8% to 22.5%) of high-risk patients presented with advanced neoplasia; U.K. high-risk patients comprised 12.1% of all patients. All U.S. lower-risk patients were low-risk by U.K. criteria; however, more patients were classified as low-risk, because the U.K. guidelines do not consider histologic features. Higher-risk U.S. patients were distributed across the 3 U.K. categories. Among all patients with advanced neoplasia, 26.3% were reclassified by the U.K. criteria to a higher-risk category and 7.0% to a lower-risk category, with a net 19.0% benefiting from detection 2 years earlier. Overall, substitution of U.K. for U.S. guidelines resulted in an estimated 0.03 additional colonoscopy every 5 years per patient. LIMITATIONS: Patients were enrolled 15 to 20 years ago, and quality measures for colonoscopy were unavailable. Patients lacking follow-up colonoscopy or with surveillance colonoscopy after 6 to 18 months and those with cancer or insufficient baseline adenoma characteristics were excluded (2076 of 5302).
CONCLUSION: Application of the U.K. guidelines in the United States could identify a subset of high-risk patients who may warrant a 1-year clearing colonoscopy without substantially increasing rates of colonoscopy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Union Public Health Programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23247939      PMCID: PMC3787691          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-12-201212180-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  35 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 2.  Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002).

Authors:  Stuart R Cairns; John H Scholefield; Robert J Steele; Malcolm G Dunlop; Huw J W Thomas; Gareth D Evans; Jayne A Eaden; Matthew D Rutter; Wendy P Atkin; Brian P Saunders; Anneke Lucassen; Paul Jenkins; Peter D Fairclough; Christopher R J Woodhouse
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Bringing new endoscopic imaging technology into everyday practice: what is the role of professional GI societies? Polyp imaging as a template for moving endoscopic innovation forward to answer key clinical questions.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; M Brian Fennerty; Prateek Sharma; Tonya Kaltenbach; Roy Soetikno
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Charles J Kahi; David G Hewett; Dustin Lee Norton; George J Eckert; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance in community practice.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff; Bonnie Yankaskas; Ziya Gizlice; Lisa Gangarosa
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 3.199

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.  Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy.

Authors:  Pauline A Mysliwiec; Martin L Brown; Carrie N Klabunde; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-08-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Calcium supplements for the prevention of colorectal adenomas. Calcium Polyp Prevention Study Group.

Authors:  J A Baron; M Beach; J S Mandel; R U van Stolk; R W Haile; R S Sandler; R Rothstein; R W Summers; D C Snover; G J Beck; J H Bond; E R Greenberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-01-14       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Paul M Ridker
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.

Authors:  Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

2.  When and How to Stop Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults: Five Rules of Thumb for Practitioners.

Authors:  Jennifer K Maratt; Audrey H Calderwood; Sameer D Saini
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  Surveillance of colonic polyps: Are we getting it right?

Authors:  Stewart N Bonnington; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Amy B Knudsen; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; William M Grady; David Lieberman; Thomas Seufferlein; Joseph J Sung; Petra G Boelens; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Toshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 52.329

6.  Risk of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia According to the Number of High-Risk Findings at Index Colonoscopy: A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID) Study.

Authors:  Yoon Suk Jung; Dong Il Park; Won Hee Kim; Chang Soo Eun; Soo-Kyung Park; Bong Min Ko; Geom Seog Seo; Jae Myung Cha; Jae Jun Park; Kyeong Ok Kim; Chang Mo Moon; Yunho Jung; Eun Soo Kim; Seong Ran Jeon; Chang Kyun Lee
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines.

Authors:  Matthew D Rutter; James East; Colin J Rees; Neil Cripps; James Docherty; Sunil Dolwani; Philip V Kaye; Kevin J Monahan; Marco R Novelli; Andrew Plumb; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Damian J M Tolan; Sophie Whyte; Stewart Bonnington; Alison Scope; Ruth Wong; Barbara Hibbert; John Marsh; Billie Moores; Amanda Cross; Linda Sharp
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 31.793

8.  Predicting the risk of recurrent adenoma and incident colorectal cancer based on findings of the baseline colonoscopy.

Authors:  Kimberly J Fairley; Jinhong Li; Michael Komar; Nancy Steigerwalt; Porat Erlich
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 4.488

9.  Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study.

Authors:  Wendy Atkin; Kate Wooldrage; Amy Brenner; Jessica Martin; Urvi Shah; Sajith Perera; Fiona Lucas; Jeremy P Brown; Ines Kralj-Hans; Paul Greliak; Kevin Pack; Jill Wood; Ann Thomson; Andrew Veitch; Stephen W Duffy; Amanda J Cross
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Risk Factors for Recurrent High-Risk Polyps after the Removal of High-Risk Polyps at Initial Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Hui Won Jang; Soo Jung Park; Sung Pil Hong; Jae Hee Cheon; Won Ho Kim; Tae Il Kim
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.759

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.