Literature DB >> 7481533

A randomized surveillance study of patients with pedunculated and small sessile tubular and tubulovillous adenomas. The Funen Adenoma Follow-up Study.

O D Jørgensen1, O Kronborg, C Fenger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We wanted to assess the influence of various surveillance intervals on the risk of new neoplasia after removal of pedunculated and small sessile tubular and tubulovillous adenomas.
METHODS: After initial colonoscopic polypectomy patients were randomized to surveillance with either 2 years (group A) or 4 years (group B) between colorectal examinations.
RESULTS: The cumulated risk of a patient having new adenomas was 35.0% (28.7-41.4%) in group A and 35.5% (28.4-42.7%) in group B after 48 months. The risk increased to 44.9% (36.0-53.9%) and 60.1% (48.5-71.7%), respectively, after 96 months. The risk of significant neoplasia (carcinoma or adenoma with villous structure, severe dysplasia, or diameter > 10 mm) was 5.2% (2.3-8.1%) and 8.6% (3.8-13.3%) after 48 months and 8.6% (4.2-13.0%) and 17.4% (7.6-27.2%) after 96 months. More than one adenoma at first examination was associated with higher risk of new adenomas. Furthermore, we found a tendency for age above 60 years and male gender to be associated with higher risk of new adenomas. More than two adenomas at first examination was the only factor found to be associated with a higher risk of new significant neoplasia. One patient in group A and two patients in group B developed cancer, which is not significantly different from the number expected (3.43) in the average Danish population (RR = 0.9, 0.2-2.6).
CONCLUSION: After colonoscopy with removal of all polyps, colorectal examination at 4 years resulted in a similar risk of new adenomas compared with examinations at 2 and 4 years. However, new significant neoplasia tended to be more frequent when first surveillance was at 4 years. Extending the surveillance to 8 years also tended to increase the risk more in the group being examined every 4 years, but reduction of the number of surveillance examinations by more than 50% and a probable reduction of complications from surveillance examinations themselves may justify a recommendation for the longest interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7481533     DOI: 10.3109/00365529509096314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0036-5521            Impact factor:   2.423


  18 in total

1.  Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps.

Authors:  W S Atkin; B P Saunders
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  The first year follow-up after colorectal adenoma polypectomy is important: a multiple-center study in symptomatic hospital-based individuals in China.

Authors:  Qin-Yan Gao; Hui-Min Chen; Jian-Qiu Sheng; Ping Zheng; Cheng-Gong Yu; Bo Jiang; Jing-Yuan Fang
Journal:  Front Med China       Date:  2010-12-02

3.  Risks, costs, and compliance limit colorectal adenoma surveillance: lessons from a randomised trial.

Authors:  J N Lund; J H Scholefield; M J Grainge; S J Smith; C Mangham; N C Armitage; M H Robinson; R F Logan
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Surveillance colonoscopy in low-risk postpolypectomy patients: Is it necessary?

Authors:  Thomas A Hornung; Roisin Bevan; Saqib Mumtaz; Benjamin R Hornung; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-20

Review 5.  Surveillance of colonic polyps: Are we getting it right?

Authors:  Stewart N Bonnington; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Cost-benefit analysis of screening colonoscopy in 40- to 50-year-old first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Markus Menges; Barbara Gärtner; Thomas Georg; Johannes Fischinger; Martin Zeitz
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2005-11-12       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Risk related surveillance following colorectal polypectomy.

Authors:  G Nusko; U Mansmann; Th Kirchner; E G Hahn
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 8.  Colorectal polyps in the elderly: what should be done?

Authors:  Kenneth Miller; Jerome D Waye
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.923

9.  Epidemiology and quality control of 245 000 outpatient colonoscopies.

Authors:  Ulrich Mansmann; Alexander Crispin; Volkmar Henschel; Christine Adrion; Volker Augustin; Berndt Birkner; Axel Munte
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 5.594

10.  Risk of advanced metachronous colorectal adenoma during long-term follow-up.

Authors:  G Nusko; E G Hahn; U Mansmann
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-07-03       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.