Frederick H Koh1, Dedrick K H Chan1,2, Jingyu Ng3, Ker-Kan Tan1,2. 1. Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, National University Health Systems, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveillance guidelines following excision of colonic tubular adenomas are well established. However, adherence to the guidelines are rarely audited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the rate of compliance to the recommended guidelines following polyp removal. METHODS: A review of a prospectively collected colonoscopy database in a single tertiary institution was conducted for all patients who underwent polypectomy in 2008. We excluded patients who were diagnosed with or had prior history of colorectal malignancy. The frequency of subsequent colonoscopic were evaluated against the recommended guidelines based on the clinico-histological characteristics of the removed polyps. RESULTS: There were 419 colonoscopies with polypectomies performed in 2008. The patient cohort had a median age of 60 years (range, 26-95 years), with the most common diagnosis being tubular adenoma with low grade dysplasia (n=291, 69.5%). Adherence to Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines, based on the factors such as the characteristics of the colonic polyps and bowel preparation at initial colonoscopy, was only 13.8% (n=58). There were 107 (25.5%) patients who had their surveillance endoscopy performed earlier than recommended. None of them were diagnosed with malignancy. The majority of patients (n=192, 45.8%), had surveillance scopes later than recommended or were lost to follow-up. Amongst these patients, two actually were diagnosed to have malignancy 3 and 5 years after their recommended surveillance scope date, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low compliance to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines. More needs to be done to improve compliance to guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Surveillance guidelines following excision of colonic tubular adenomas are well established. However, adherence to the guidelines are rarely audited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the rate of compliance to the recommended guidelines following polyp removal. METHODS: A review of a prospectively collected colonoscopy database in a single tertiary institution was conducted for all patients who underwent polypectomy in 2008. We excluded patients who were diagnosed with or had prior history of colorectal malignancy. The frequency of subsequent colonoscopic were evaluated against the recommended guidelines based on the clinico-histological characteristics of the removed polyps. RESULTS: There were 419 colonoscopies with polypectomies performed in 2008. The patient cohort had a median age of 60 years (range, 26-95 years), with the most common diagnosis being tubular adenoma with low grade dysplasia (n=291, 69.5%). Adherence to Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines, based on the factors such as the characteristics of the colonic polyps and bowel preparation at initial colonoscopy, was only 13.8% (n=58). There were 107 (25.5%) patients who had their surveillance endoscopy performed earlier than recommended. None of them were diagnosed with malignancy. The majority of patients (n=192, 45.8%), had surveillance scopes later than recommended or were lost to follow-up. Amongst these patients, two actually were diagnosed to have malignancy 3 and 5 years after their recommended surveillance scope date, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low compliance to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines. More needs to be done to improve compliance to guidelines.
Authors: Jason A Dominitz; Glenn M Eisen; Todd H Baron; Jay L Goldstein; William K Hirota; Brian C Jacobson; John F Johanson; Jonathan A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Hareth M Raddawi; John J Vargo; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbough; Douglas O Faigel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 9.427
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
Authors: Robert E Schoen; Paul F Pinsky; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Douglas J Reding; Richard B Hayes; Timothy Church; Susan Yurgalevich; V Paul Doria-Rose; Tom Hickey; Thomas Riley; Christine D Berg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: G Libby; D H Brewster; P L McClements; F A Carey; R J Black; J Birrell; C G Fraser; R J C Steele Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 5.315