26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence.

          Methods

          We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649.

          Findings

          253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6–11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40–0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31–0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06–1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29–0·84).

          Interpretation

          Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear.

          Funding

          National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

          Inadequate preparation of the bowel for colonoscopy can result in both missed pathological lesions and cancelled procedures. We looked prospectively at the quality of colonic preparation and evaluated potential associations between specific patient characteristics and inadequate colonic preparation. Data were gathered on consecutive patients presenting for colonoscopy who received either a polyethylene glycol lavage or oral sodium phosphate bowel preparation. Patient demographic and medical history information was gathered before scheduled colonoscopy. The endoscopist evaluated the preparation quality during the procedure. Complete data were gathered on 649 of 714 eligible patients (90.8%). Possible predictors of inadequate colonic preparation were analyzed using univariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression models. An inadequate colonic preparation was reported in 21.7% of observed colonoscopies. Only 18% of patients with an inadequate colonic preparation reported a failure to adequately follow preparation instructions. A later colonoscopy starting time, a reported failure to follow preparation instructions, inpatient status, a procedural indication of constipation, taking tricyclic antidepressants, male gender, and a history of cirrhosis, stroke or dementia were all independent predictors of an inadequate colon preparation (all p < 0.05). A procedural indication of previous polypectomy was a negative predictor of inadequate colonic preparation (p < 0.05). Several patient characteristics were significantly associated with colonic preparation quality independent of preparation type, compliance with preparation instructions, and procedure starting time. This information may help to identify patients at an increased risk for inadequate colonic preparation for whom alternative preparation protocols would be appropriate.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy.

            Limited data exist regarding the actual risk of developing advanced adenomas and cancer after polypectomy or the factors that determine risk. We pooled individual data from 8 prospective studies comprising 9167 men and women aged 22 to 80 with previously resected colorectal adenomas to quantify their risk of developing subsequent advanced adenoma or cancer as well as identify factors associated with the development of advanced colorectal neoplasms during surveillance. During a median follow-up period of 47.2 months, advanced colorectal neoplasia was diagnosed in 1082 (11.8%) of the patients, 58 of whom (0.6%) had invasive cancer. Risk of a metachronous advanced adenoma was higher among patients with 5 or more baseline adenomas (24.1%; standard error, 2.2) and those with an adenoma 20 mm in size or greater (19.3%; standard error, 1.5). Risk factor patterns were similar for advanced adenomas and invasive cancer. In multivariate analyses, older age (P < .0001 for trend) and male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.65) were associated significantly with an increased risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, as were the number and size of prior adenomas (P < .0001 for trend), the presence of villous features (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52), and proximal location (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.43-1.98). High-grade dysplasia was not associated independently with metachronous advanced neoplasia after adjustment for other adenoma characteristics. Occurrence of advanced colorectal neoplasia is common after polypectomy. Factors that are associated most strongly with risk of advanced neoplasia are patient age and the number and size of prior adenomas.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial.

              Colorectal cancer is a major health burden. Screening is recommended in many countries. To estimate the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in a population-based trial. Randomized clinical trial of 100,210 individuals aged 50 to 64 years, identified from the population of Oslo city and Telemark County, Norway. Screening was performed in 1999-2000 (55-64-year age group) and in 2001 (50-54-year age group), with follow-up ending December 31, 2011. Of those selected, 1415 were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer, emigration, or death, and 3 could not be traced in the population registry. Participants randomized to the screening group were invited to undergo screening. Within the screening group, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or combination of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Participants with positive screening test results (cancer, adenoma, polyp ≥10 mm, or positive FOBT) were offered colonoscopy. The control group received no intervention. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. A total of 98,792 participants were included in the intention-to-screen analyses, of whom 78,220 comprised the control group and 20,572 comprised the screening group (10,283 randomized to receive a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 10,289 to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT). Adherence with screening was 63%. After a median of 10.9 years, 71 participants died of colorectal cancer in the screening group vs 330 in the control group (31.4 vs 43.1 deaths per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 11.7 [95% CI, 3.0-20.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 253 participants in the screening group vs 1086 in the control group (112.6 vs 141.0 cases per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 28.4 [95% CI, 12.1-44.7]; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.92]). Colorectal cancer incidence was reduced in both the 50- to 54-year age group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94) and the 55- to 64-year age group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96). There was no difference between the flexible sigmoidoscopy only vs the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT screening groups. In Norway, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening or flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality on a population level compared with no screening. Screening was effective both in the 50- to 54-year and the 55- to 64-year age groups. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119912.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Oncol
                Lancet Oncol
                The Lancet. Oncology
                Lancet Pub. Group
                1470-2045
                1474-5488
                1 June 2017
                June 2017
                : 18
                : 6
                : 823-834
                Affiliations
                [a ]Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [b ]New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
                [c ]Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University, London, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Wendy Atkin, Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, London W2 1PG, UKCorrespondence to: Prof Wendy AtkinCancer Screening and Prevention Research GroupDepartment of Surgery and CancerImperial College LondonSt Mary's CampusLondonW2 1PGUK w.atkin@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                Article
                S1470-2045(17)30187-0
                10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30187-0
                5461371
                28457708
                307a5c4a-ec43-4b0d-bdc0-d59eaf76e538
                © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article