Literature DB >> 28402402

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

Ethna McFerran, James F O'Mahony, Richard Fallis, Duncan McVicar, Ann G Zauber, Frank Kee.   

Abstract

Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is 5%, and 5-year survival at early stage is 92%. Individuals with precancerous lesions removed at primary screening are typically recommended surveillance colonoscopy. Because greater benefits are anticipated for those with higher risk of colorectal cancer, scope for risk-specific surveillance recommendations exists. This review assesses published cost-effectiveness estimates of postpolypectomy surveillance to consider the potential for personalized recommendations by risk group. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced neoplasia postpolypectomy for low-risk cases were comparable to those without adenoma, with both rates under the lifetime risk of 5%. This group may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harm and inefficient use of often scarce colonoscopy capacity. Therefore, greater personalization through deintensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial. The potential for noninvasive testing, such as fecal immunochemical tests, combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention may reserve colonoscopy for targeted use in personalized risk-stratified surveillance. This review appraised evidence supporting a program of personalized surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk group and compared the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies. It assessed trade-offs among costs, benefits, and adverse effects that must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalized surveillance.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adenoma; cancer prevention; colorectal cancer; cost-effectiveness; early detection; precision medicine; surveillance

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28402402      PMCID: PMC5858033          DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxx002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiol Rev        ISSN: 0193-936X            Impact factor:   6.222


  86 in total

1.  Colonoscopic polypectomy and the incidence of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2009-09

3.  Sessile serrated adenomas: why conventional endoscopy is okay for unconventional polyps.

Authors:  Stephen J Lanspa; Henry T Lynch
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Natural history of untreated colonic polyps.

Authors:  S J Stryker; B G Wolff; C E Culp; S D Libbe; D M Ilstrup; R L MacCarty
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 5.  The colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence.

Authors:  A Leslie; F A Carey; N R Pratt; R J C Steele
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the new hampshire colonoscopy registry.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Martha Goodrich; Christina M Robinson; Julia E Weiss
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  ß-Catenin, Cox-2 and p53 immunostaining in colorectal adenomas to predict recurrence after endoscopic polypectomy.

Authors:  Linda Brand; Johanna Munding; Christian P Pox; Wibke Ziebarth; Markus Reiser; Dietrich Hüppe; Wolff Schmiegel; Anke Reinacher-Schick; Andrea Tannapfel
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Can calcium chemoprevention of adenoma recurrence substitute or serve as an adjunct for colonoscopic surveillance?

Authors:  Aasma Shaukat; Murtaza Parekh; Joseph Lipscomb; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 2.188

9.  Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study.

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

10.  Utilization of surveillance after polypectomy in the medicare population--a cohort study.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Stacey Fedewa; Chun Chieh Lin; Katherine S Virgo; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  Reducing Cancer Burden in the Population: An Overview of Epidemiologic Evidence to Support Policies, Systems, and Environmental Changes.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Platz
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

2.  The role of miR-370 and miR-138 in the regulation of BMP2 suppressor gene expression in colorectal cancer: preliminary studies.

Authors:  Agnieszka Piechowska; Celina Kruszniewska-Rajs; Magdalena Kimsa-Dudek; Magdalena Kołomańska; Barbara Strzałka-Mrozik; Joanna Gola; Stanisław Głuszek
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 3.  Biomarkers for detecting colorectal cancer non-invasively: DNA, RNA or proteins?

Authors:  Alexandre Loktionov
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2020-02-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.