Thomas A Hornung1, Roisin Bevan2, Saqib Mumtaz3, Benjamin R Hornung4, Matthew D Rutter5. 1. Northern Region Endoscopy Group, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK. 2. Northern Region Endoscopy Group, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK. 3. Leeds Centre for Digestive Disease, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. 4. Department of General Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK. 5. Northern Region Endoscopy Group, University Hospital of North Tees, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, UK.
Abstract
AIM: Patients who have had colorectal adenomas removed are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the future. We sought to determine whether surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years in low-risk postpolypectomy patients is necessary and effective. METHOD: UK multicentre retrospective study. Patients diagnosed with 'low-risk' colorectal adenomas between April 2004 and April 2007 were identified and results of all subsequent lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies were noted. Where no colonoscopy had been done at or after 5 years from the index investigation, patient details were cross-checked against hospital colorectal multidisciplinary team databases to ensure no colorectal cancer had been detected in the meantime. RESULTS: 641 patients were included. 131 patients (20.4%) had a 'per protocol' surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years. Of these, no patients were found to have colorectal cancer, 10 patients (7.6%) had advanced adenomas, 26 patients (19.8%) had non-advanced adenomas and 95 patients (72.5%) had no further adenomas. 510 patients (79.6%) did not have a surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years. Of these, 110 patients (17.2%) developed lower GI symptoms within 5 years of their index endoscopy and underwent a further lower GI endoscopy to investigate these symptoms. 3 colorectal cancers in 3 patients were found during these endoscopies and two further colorectal cancers were found at symptomatic colonoscopies at or after 5 years from index. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low-risk adenomas should be risk profiled. Those with risk factors, such as two adenomas, male sex and advanced adenomas at index procedure should be offered 5-year surveillance colonoscopy.
AIM: Patients who have had colorectal adenomas removed are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the future. We sought to determine whether surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years in low-risk postpolypectomy patients is necessary and effective. METHOD: UK multicentre retrospective study. Patients diagnosed with 'low-risk' colorectal adenomas between April 2004 and April 2007 were identified and results of all subsequent lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies were noted. Where no colonoscopy had been done at or after 5 years from the index investigation, patient details were cross-checked against hospital colorectal multidisciplinary team databases to ensure no colorectal cancer had been detected in the meantime. RESULTS: 641 patients were included. 131 patients (20.4%) had a 'per protocol' surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years. Of these, no patients were found to have colorectal cancer, 10 patients (7.6%) had advanced adenomas, 26 patients (19.8%) had non-advanced adenomas and 95 patients (72.5%) had no further adenomas. 510 patients (79.6%) did not have a surveillance colonoscopy at 5 years. Of these, 110 patients (17.2%) developed lower GI symptoms within 5 years of their index endoscopy and underwent a further lower GI endoscopy to investigate these symptoms. 3 colorectal cancers in 3 patients were found during these endoscopies and two further colorectal cancers were found at symptomatic colonoscopies at or after 5 years from index. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with low-risk adenomas should be risk profiled. Those with risk factors, such as two adenomas, male sex and advanced adenomas at index procedure should be offered 5-year surveillance colonoscopy.
Entities:
Keywords:
ADENOMA; CANCER PREVENTION; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; David A Lieberman; Sidney J Winawer; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Arthur Schatzkin; Amanda J Cross; Ann G Zauber; Timothy R Church; Peter Lance; E Robert Greenberg; María Elena Martínez Journal: Gut Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Matthew D Rutter; Brian P Saunders; Kay H Wilkinson; Steve Rumbles; Gillian Schofield; Michael A Kamm; Christopher B Williams; Ashley B Price; Ian C Talbot; Alastair Forbes Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sheila A Bingham; Nicholas E Day; Robert Luben; Pietro Ferrari; Nadia Slimani; Teresa Norat; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Emmanuelle Kesse; Alexandra Nieters; Heiner Boeing; Anne Tjønneland; Kim Overvad; Carmen Martinez; Miren Dorronsoro; Carlos A Gonzalez; Timothy J Key; Antonia Trichopoulou; Androniki Naska; Paolo Vineis; Rosario Tumino; Vittorio Krogh; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Petra H M Peeters; Göran Berglund; Göran Hallmans; Eiliv Lund; Guri Skeie; Rudolf Kaaks; Elio Riboli Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-05-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: H T Lynch; T C Smyrk; P Watson; S J Lanspa; J F Lynch; P M Lynch; R J Cavalieri; C R Boland Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1993-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: A I Neugut; J S Jacobson; H Ahsan; J Santos; G C Garbowski; K A Forde; M R Treat; J Waye Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Benjamin Shandro; Vincent Chang; Jai Mathur; Parker O'Neill; Christopher Groves; Gareth Sadler; Andrew Poullis Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.659