Literature DB >> 27042931

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials.

Rodrigo Jover1, Michael Bretthauer2, Evelien Dekker3, Øyvind Holme2, Michal F Kaminski2, Magnus Løberg2, Ann G Zauber4, Miguel A Hernán5, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar6, Annike Sunde7, Eleanor McFadden7, Antoni Castells8, Jaroslaw Regula9, Enrique Quintero10, Maria Pellisé8, Carlo Senore11, Mette Kalager2, Mario Dinis-Ribeiro12, Louise Emilsson2, David F Ransohoff13, Geir Hoff2, Hans-Olov Adami2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies after polyp removal depending on the number and characteristics of polyps, but there is a lack of evidence supporting the recommendations. This report outlines the rationale and design of two randomized trials and one observational study investigating evidence-based surveillance strategies following polyp removal. Study design and endpoints: The EPoS studies started to recruit patients in April 2015. EPoS study I randomizes 13 746 patients with low-risk adenomas (1 - 2 tubular adenomas size < 10 mm, low-grade dysplasia) to surveillance after 5 and 10 years, or 10 years only. EPoS study II randomizes 13 704 patients with high-risk adenomas (3 - 10 adenomas or adenoma ≥ 10 mm in diameter, or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or > 25 % villous features) to surveillance after 3, 5, and 10 years, or 5 and 10 years only. EPoS study III offers surveillance after 5 and 10 years to patients with serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm in diameter at any location, or serrated polyps ≥ 5 mm in diameter proximal to the splenic flexure. All polyps are removed before patients enter the trials. The primary end point is colorectal cancer incidence after 10 years. We assume a colorectal cancer risk of 1 % for patients in EPoS I, and 2 % for patients in EPoS II. Using a noninferiority hypothesis with an equivalence interval of 0.5 % for EPoS I and 0.7 % for EPoS II, the trials are 90 % powered to uncover differences larger than the equivalence intervals. For EPoS III, no power analyses have been performed.
CONCLUSIONS: The present trials aim to develop evidence-based strategies for polyp surveillance, thereby maximizing effectiveness and minimizing resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02319928). © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27042931      PMCID: PMC5412707          DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-104116

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


  31 in total

1.  Potential pitfalls in the use of surrogate endpoints in colorectal adenoma chemoprevention.

Authors:  Bernard Levin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-05-21       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Colonoscopy as a triage screening test.

Authors:  Michael Bretthauer; Mette Kalager
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  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 4.  Evidence for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.043

5.  Surveillance after colonic neoplasia: to die of success.

Authors:  R Jover
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Winding back the harms of too much medicine.

Authors:  Ray Moynihan; Paul Glasziou; Steven Woloshin; Lisa Schwartz; John Santa; Fiona Godlee
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-02-26

7.  Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Sonia Hernández-Díaz
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 2.486

8.  Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Kenneth P Batts; Carol A Burke; Randall W Burt; John R Goldblum; José G Guillem; Charles J Kahi; Matthew F Kalady; Michael J O'Brien; Robert D Odze; Shuji Ogino; Susan Parry; Dale C Snover; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul E Wise; Joanne Young; James Church
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Do's and don'ts in evaluation of endoscopic screening for gastrointestinal cancers.

Authors:  Michael Bretthauer; Mette Kalager; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 10.093

10.  Features of adenoma and colonoscopy associated with recurrent colorectal neoplasia based on a large community-based study.

Authors:  Else-Mariëtte B van Heijningen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Wilco Lesterhuis; Frank Ter Borg; Juda Vecht; Vincent De Jonge; Pieter Spoelstra; Leopold Engels; Clemens J M Bolwerk; Robin Timmer; Jan H Kleibeuker; Jan J Koornstra; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  22 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Ajitha Mannalithara; Reinier G S Meester; Samir Gupta; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Contribution of Surveillance Colonoscopy to Colorectal Cancer Prevention.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Kjetil Garborg; Thomas de Lange; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-09

4.  Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Removal of Conventional Adenomas and Serrated Polyps.

Authors:  Xiaosheng He; Dong Hang; Kana Wu; Jennifer Nayor; David A Drew; Edward L Giovannucci; Shuji Ogino; Andrew T Chan; Mingyang Song
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Thinking Big About Small Adenomas: Moving Toward "Precision Surveillance".

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  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 7.  The Serrated Polyp Pathway: Is It Time to Alter Surveillance Guidelines?

Authors:  Brendon O'Connell; Nazar Hafiz; Seth Crockett
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2017-08-29

8.  Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death After Adenoma Removal in a Large, Community-based Population.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Lee; Christopher D Jensen; Theodore R Levin; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jessica Chubak; Aruna S Kamineni; Joanne E Schottinger; Nirupa R Ghai; Natalia Udaltsova; Wei K Zhao; Bruce H Fireman; Charles P Quesenberry; E John Orav; Celette S Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; David Lieberman; Joseph C Anderson; Carol A Burke; Jason A Dominitz; Tonya Kaltenbach; Douglas J Robertson; Aasma Shaukat; Sapna Syngal; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; David Lieberman; Joseph C Anderson; Carol A Burke; Jason A Dominitz; Tonya Kaltenbach; Douglas J Robertson; Aasma Shaukat; Sapna Syngal; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 9.427

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.