Probability of High-Risk Colorectal Neoplasm Recurrence Based on the Results of Two Previous Colonoscopies

Park, Hye Won; Han, Seungbong; Lee, Ji Young; Chang, Hyo Won; Choe, Jaewon; Choi, Young Ju; So, Hoonsub; Yang, Dan; Myung, Seung‐Jae; Yang, Suk‐Kyun; Kim, Jin-Ho

doi:10.1007/s10620-014-3334-9

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, we excluded five papers because they were guidelines, reviews, or editorials. In total, we included 28 articles,3 8 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 one of which we found via cross referencing 33…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifteen studies were from the Western hemisphere,3 8 20 21 23 25 29 30 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 and 13 were from the Eastern hemisphere 2224 26 27 28 31 34 40 41 42 44 45 Twenty two studies were cohort studies,3 8 20 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 and five were cross sectional studies 2123 26 35 36 One study was a case-control study in which the control group was prospectively followed up 33…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis

Heisser

Peng

Weigl

et al. 2019

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo review and summarise the evidence on the prevalence of colorectal adenomas and cancers at a follow-up screening colonoscopy after negative index colonoscopy, stratified by interval between examinations and by sex.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Two investigators independently extracted characteristics and results of identified studies and performed standardised quality ratings.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessing the outcome of a follow-up colonoscopy among participants at average risk for colorectal cancer with a negative previous colonoscopy (no adenomas).Results28 studies were identified, including 22 cohort studies, five cross sectional studies, and one case-control study. Findings for an interval between colonoscopies of one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years were reported by 17, 16, and three studies, respectively. Summary estimates of prevalences of any neoplasm were 20.7% (95% confidence interval 15.8% to 25.5%), 23.0% (18.0% to 28.0%), and 21.9% (14.9% to 29.0%) for one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years between colonoscopies. Corresponding summary estimates of prevalences of any advanced neoplasm were 2.8% (2.0% to 3.7%), 3.2% (2.2% to 4.1%), and 7.0% (5.3% to 8.7%). Seven studies also reported findings stratified by sex. Summary estimates stratified by interval and sex were consistently higher for men than for women.ConclusionsAlthough detection of any neoplasms was observed in more than 20% of participants within five years of a negative screening colonoscopy, detection of advanced neoplasms within 10 years was rare. Our findings suggest that 10 year intervals for colonoscopy screening after a negative colonoscopy, as currently recommended, may be adequate, but more studies are needed to strengthen the empirical basis for pertinent recommendations and to investigate even longer intervals.Study registrationProspero CRD42019127842.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis

Heisser

Peng

Weigl

et al. 2019

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We identified several studies on serial surveillance published since 2012. 30,[55][56][57][58][59] Findings from the largest of these studies, 30,55,56 as well as those considered as part of the 2012 recommendations, are summarized in Table 8.…”

Section: Recommended Post-colonoscopy Surveillance Strategies For Reducing Colorectal Cancer Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

C olonoscopy is performed routinely for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, follow-up of other abnormal screening tests, workup of signs and symptoms of gastrointestinal disease, and surveillance after CRC and polyp removal. Post procedure, colonoscopists are expected to provide followup recommendations to patients and referring physicians. Recommendations for follow-up after normal colonoscopy among individuals age-eligible for screening, and postpolypectomy among all individuals with polyps are among the most common clinical scenarios requiring guidance. 1 Risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia is associated with findings on prior colonoscopy. After high-quality colonoscopy, patients with no neoplasia detected are at the lowest risk, and those with polyps are risk-stratified based on the histology, number, location, and size of polyps detected. Since the release of the last US Multi-Society Task Force (Task Force) recommendations for post-colonoscopy follow-up and polyp surveillance in 2012, 2 a number of articles have been published on risk of CRC based on colonoscopy findings and patient characteristics, as well as the potential impact of screening and surveillance colonoscopy on outcomes, such as incident CRC and polyps. Further, recent studies increasingly reflect the modern era of colonoscopy with more awareness of the importance of quality factors (eg, adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation, adequate adenoma detection, and complete polyp resection), and utilization of state of the art technologies (eg, high-definition colonoscopes). Higher-quality colonoscopy could impact the importance of previously identified risk factors. Our aim was to review newly available evidence and update recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy with or without polypectomy. Methods Evidence Review and Recommendation DevelopmentTo identify issues of greatest importance for the current revision, we developed PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome) questions (Supplementary Appendix A [SG and DL, with input from TK]). In consultation with a certified medical librarian (KH), literature searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL with a combination of controlled vocabulary and keyword terms for colonoscopy, polyps, and polypectomy surveillance (see Supplementary Appendix B for search terms). English-language articles since January 1, 2012 were retrieved. Searches were run on March 30, 2017, and identified a total of 1904 unique articles (see Supplementary Appendix C for article selection flow).Criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of titles, abstracts, and articles are outlined in Table 1. All titles were reviewed by a single author (SG) and potentially relevant titles were selected for abstract review. All abstracts were reviewed by 2 authors (SG and DL) and potentially relevant abstracts were selected for full article review. Included articles were reviewed in detail by the same 2 authors. The final list of articles selected for review was supplemented by repeating the literature search through S...

show abstract

“…Several new studies since 2012 [20][21][22][23] provide evidence of risk of HRA (not CRC) at a second surveillance examination. The most significant finding in these studies is that the detection of HRA, either at baseline or first surveillance examination, identifies individuals who continue to have a higher likelihood of HRA at a second surveillance examination.…”

Section: Serial Surveillance After the First Surveillance Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SSPs Evidence weak. There is growing evidence that having baseline SSPs is a predictor of detecting large SSPs during surveillance [24][25][26] Colonoscopy surveillance after the first surveillance examination New evidence that the finding of an HRA at baseline, or at the first surveillance examination, is associated with a higher risk of detecting HRAs on subsequent surveillance examinations [20][21][22][23] CRC, colorectal cancer; HR, hazard ratio; HRA, high-risk adenoma; LRA, low-risk adenoma; RR, relative risk; SSP, sessile serrated polyp.…”

Section: Utilization Of Polyp Surveillance In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Does Colon Polyp Surveillance Improve Patient Outcomes?

Lieberman

Gupta

2020

Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colon polyp surveillance now accounts for 25% of all colonoscopies performed. The evidence that colonoscopy surveillance reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence or mortality is weak. The biology of the baseline lesions and quality of the baseline exam are two primary factors contributing to post-colonoscopy CRC. Prior recommendations for surveillance were based largely on the likelihood that patients with adenomas would develop advanced adenomas, a surrogate for CRC. There is now evidence that baseline colonoscopy findings are strongly associated with the risk of incidence or death from CRC. This evidence provides a basis for updated evidence-based recommendations for surveillance. In addition, there is also growing evidence that the quality of the baseline exam is an important predictor of the likelihood of developing postcolonoscopy CRC.

show abstract

Probability of High-Risk Colorectal Neoplasm Recurrence Based on the Results of Two Previous Colonoscopies

Abstract: The rate of high-risk colorectal neoplasm recurrence differs according to the two previous colonoscopy findings. Therefore, surveillance intervals could be adjusted not just only by the most recent colonoscopy findings but also by considering two previous colonoscopy findings.

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis

Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Does Colon Polyp Surveillance Improve Patient Outcomes?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About