Joseph C Anderson1, John A Baron2, Dennis J Ahnen3, Elizabeth L Barry4, Roberd M Bostick5, Carol A Burke6, Robert S Bresalier7, Timothy R Church8, Bernard F Cole9, Marcia Cruz-Correa10, Adam S Kim11, Leila A Mott4, Robert S Sandler12, Douglas J Robertson13. 1. Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire. Electronic address: joseph.anderson@dartmouth.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Gastroenterology of the Rockies, Denver and Boulder, Colorado. 4. Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 8. Division of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 9. Interim Dean and Professor of Statistics in the College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. 10. Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 11. Minnesota Gastroenterology, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota. 12. Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 13. Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations. METHODS: We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations. METHODS: We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.
Authors: John A Baron; Elizabeth L Barry; Leila A Mott; Judy R Rees; Robert S Sandler; Dale C Snover; Roberd M Bostick; Anastasia Ivanova; Bernard F Cole; Dennis J Ahnen; Gerald J Beck; Robert S Bresalier; Carol A Burke; Timothy R Church; Marcia Cruz-Correa; Jane C Figueiredo; Michael Goodman; Adam S Kim; Douglas J Robertson; Richard Rothstein; Aasma Shaukat; March E Seabrook; Robert W Summers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 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
Authors: Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Gwen Murphy; Paul S Albert; Leah B Sansbury; Zhuoqiao Wang; Amanda J Cross; Pamela M Marcus; Bette Caan; James R Marshall; Peter Lance; Electra D Paskett; Joel Weissfeld; Martha L Slattery; Randall Burt; Frank Iber; Moshe Shike; J Walter Kikendall; Elaine Lanza; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; Carol A Burke; H Gilbert Welch; Robert W Haile; Robert S Sandler; E Robert Greenberg; Dennis J Ahnen; Robert S Bresalier; Richard I Rothstein; Bernard Cole; Leila A Mott; John A Baron Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stacy B Menees; H Myra Kim; Eric E Elliott; Jennifer L Mickevicius; Brittany B Graustein; Philip S Schoenfeld Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Else-Mariëtte B van Heijningen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Ewout W Steyerberg; S Lucas Goede; Evelien Dekker; Wilco Lesterhuis; Frank ter Borg; Juda Vecht; Pieter Spoelstra; Leopold Engels; Clemens J M Bolwerk; Robin Timmer; Jan H Kleibeuker; Jan J Koornstra; Harry J de Koning; Ernst J Kuipers; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Gut Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: David I Fudman; Amit G Singal; Mark G Cooper; MinJae Lee; Caitlin C Murphy Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 13.576
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
Authors: Seri Hong; Mina Suh; Kui Son Choi; Boyoung Park; Jae Myung Cha; Hyun-Soo Kim; Jae Kwan Jun; Dong Soo Han Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2018-07-15 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Marisol Gálvez; Angel Mario Zarate; Hector Espino; Fátima Higuera-de la Tijera; Richard Alexander Awad; Santiago Camacho Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-11-21