Literature DB >> 9934755

The colonoscopic miss rate and true one-year recurrence of colorectal neoplastic polyps. Polyp Prevention Study Group.

S Bensen1, L A Mott, B Dain, R Rothstein, J Baron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Studies of tandem colonoscopies have reported that 15-25% of neoplastic polyps <1 cm in size and 0-6% of larger polyps are overlooked at the time of colonoscopy. We determined the miss rate and "true" 1-yr recurrence of neoplastic polyps in a population of patients reflecting a broad spectrum of different gastroenterology practice settings.
METHODS: Patient data from several sources were examined for repeat colonoscopies performed on the same patient within 120 days of each other. Examination pairs were included for analysis if both colonoscopies had good preps and reached the cecum. The miss rate was calculated by two methods: 1) a pooled rate, the total number of polyps on all second examinations divided by the total number on both examinations, and 2) a within-person rate, the average of the individual miss-rates. We estimated a "true" 1-yr recurrence rate by subtracting the proportion of patients with a missed neoplastic polyp from the proportion of patients with a neoplastic polyp found at 1 yr.
RESULTS: A total of 76 colonoscopy pairs a mean 47 days apart (range, 1-119 days) were identified from a total of approximately 15,000 examinations and used to calculate the overall miss rates. For the category "all polyps" (neoplastic and nonneoplastic polyps), 17% by the pooled method and 11% by the within-person method were missed. The corresponding rates for neoplastic polyps were 12% by the pooled method and 8% by the within-person method. A total of 17% of patients had one or more neoplastic polyps missed on the initial examination. The observed 1-yr recurrence rate was determined from 1,314 colonoscopy pairs performed a mean of 379 days apart and found to be 28% for neoplastic polyps. By comparing this to the proportion of patients with one or more missed neoplastic polyps, we found the true 1-yr recurrence of neoplastic polyps to be 11%.
CONCLUSION: There is a significant colonoscopic miss rate for neoplastic polyps and "all polyps" in clinical practice that is comparable to that previously stated in special research settings. The within-person rate more accurately reflects the true colorectal polyp miss rate for any given colonoscopic exam than does the pooled rate. The difference between the observed 1-yr recurrence rate and the proportion of patients with a missed polyp represents the true 1-yr recurrence of neoplastic polyps.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9934755     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.00796.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  28 in total

1.  Surveillance colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis: magnifying chromoendoscopy in the spotlight.

Authors:  R Kiesslich; M F Neurath
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Narrow band imaging for the detection of neoplastic lesions of the colon.

Authors:  Mitchell M Lee; Robert Enns
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  Linear-array EUS improves detection of pancreatic lesions in high-risk individuals: a randomized tandem study.

Authors:  Eun Ji Shin; Mark Topazian; Michael G Goggins; Sapna Syngal; John R Saltzman; Jeffrey H Lee; James J Farrell; Marcia I Canto
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy.

Authors:  Kunio Kasugai; Naotaka Ogasawara; Makoto Sasaki
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-16

5.  Interval faecal occult blood testing in a colonoscopy based screening programme detects additional pathology.

Authors:  P A Bampton; J J Sandford; S R Cole; A Smith; J Morcom; B Cadd; G P Young
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Perspectives of colorectal cancer screening in Germany 2009.

Authors:  Andreas Sieg; Kilian Friedrich
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-10-15

Review 7.  Update in Surveillance Recommendations in Individuals With Conventional Adenomas.

Authors:  Rishabh Sachdev; Rahul Sao; John W Birk; Joseph C Anderson; Joel Levine
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-06

8.  High-definition colonoscopy with i-Scan: better diagnosis for small polyps and flat adenomas.

Authors:  Pier Alberto Testoni; Chiara Notaristefano; Cristian Vailati; Milena Di Leo; Edi Viale
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Should Assessment of Quality Indicator of Colonoscopy Be Varied Depending on the Colonoscopic Technique Level?

Authors:  Bum Su Choung; Seong Hun Kim; Kyung Bo Yoo; Seung Young Seo; In Hee Kim; Seung Ok Lee; Soo Teik Lee; Sang Wook Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Comparative study of conventional colonoscopy and pan-colonic narrow-band imaging system in the detection of neoplastic colonic polyps: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Takuya Inoue; Mitsuyuki Murano; Naoko Murano; Takanori Kuramoto; Ken Kawakami; Yosuke Abe; Eijiro Morita; Ken Toshina; Hideo Hoshiro; Yutaro Egashira; Eiji Umegaki; Kazuhide Higuchi
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-02-24       Impact factor: 7.527

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.