Literature DB >> 24030244

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

Cesare Hassan1, Enrique Quintero, Jean-Marc Dumonceau, Jaroslaw Regula, Catarina Brandão, Stanislas Chaussade, Evelien Dekker, Mario Dinis-Ribeiro, Monika Ferlitsch, Antonio Gimeno-García, Yark Hazewinkel, Rodrigo Jover, Mette Kalager, Magnus Loberg, Christian Pox, Bjorn Rembacken, David Lieberman.   

Abstract

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions.1 In the low risk group (patients with 1 - 2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm with low grade dysplasia), the ESGE recommends participation in existing national screening programmes 10 years after the index colonoscopy. If no screening programme is available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In the high risk group (patients with adenomas with villous histology or high grade dysplasia or ≥10 mm in size, or ≥ 3 adenomas), the ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after the index colonoscopy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Patients with 10 or more adenomas should be referred for genetic counselling (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 In the high risk group, if no high risk adenomas are detected at the first surveillance examination, the ESGE suggests a 5-year interval before a second surveillance colonoscopy (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). If high risk adenomas are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, a 3-year repetition of surveillance colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).4 The ESGE recommends that patients with serrated polyps < 10 mm in size with no dysplasia should be classified as low risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). The ESGE suggests that patients with large serrated polyps (≥ 10 mm) or those with dysplasia should be classified as high risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).5 The ESGE recommends that the endoscopist is responsible for providing a written recommendation for the post-polypectomy surveillance schedule (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24030244     DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1344548

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  153 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

Review 2.  Risk of Advanced Adenoma, Colorectal Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer Mortality in People With Low-Risk Adenomas at Baseline Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Catherine Dubé; Mafo Yakubu; Bronwen R McCurdy; Andrea Lischka; Anna Koné; Meghan J Walker; Leslea Peirson; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Sessile Serrated Polyps with Synchronous Conventional Adenomas Increase Risk of Future Advanced Neoplasia.

Authors:  Erin Symonds; Shahzaib Anwar; Graeme Young; Rosie Meng; Michelle Coats; Kalindra Simpson; Peter Bampton; Robert Fraser; Charles Cock
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Prediction of the Risk of a Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasm Using a Novel Scoring System.

Authors:  Ji Young Lee; Hye Won Park; Min-Ju Kim; Jong-Soo Lee; Ho-Su Lee; Hye-Sook Chang; Jaewon Choe; Sung Wook Hwang; Dong-Hoon Yang; Seung-Jae Myung; Suk-Kyun Yang; Jeong-Sik Byeon
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Risk stratification of individuals with low-risk colorectal adenomas using clinical characteristics: a pooled analysis.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; Elizabeth T Jacobs; John A Baron; David A Lieberman; Gwen Murphy; Uri Ladabaum; Amanda J Cross; Rodrigo Jover; Lin Liu; Maria Elena Martinez
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Success, safety, and usefulness of right colon retroflexion for the detection of additional colonic lesions not visualized with standard frontal view.

Authors:  Oscar Nogales; Jon de la Maza; Esperanza Martos; Laura Carrión; Rodrigo Borobia; Luis Lucendo; María López-Ibáñez; Javier García-Lledó; Leticia Pérez-Carazo; Beatriz Merino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy. Application of artificial intelligence algorithms to identify complete colonic investigations.

Authors:  U Deding; J Herp; A-L Havshoei; M Kobaek-Larsen; M M Buijs; E S Nadimi; G Baatrup
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.623

8.  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

Review 9.  Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications.

Authors:  Andrea Laghi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.