Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Endoscopy 2022; 54(10): 948-958
DOI: 10.1055/a-1795-4673
Original article

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

Amanda J. Cross 
1   Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group (CSPRG), Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Emma C. Robbins
1   Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group (CSPRG), Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Kevin Pack
1   Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group (CSPRG), Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Iain Stenson
1   Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group (CSPRG), Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Matthew D. Rutter 
2   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom
3   Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom
,
Andrew M. Veitch
4   Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
,
Brian P. Saunders
5   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom
,
Stephen W. Duffy
6   Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University, London, United Kingdom
,
Kate Wooldrage
1   Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group (CSPRG), Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
› Author AffiliationsSupported by: Health Technology Assessment Programme 15/80/13
Supported by: Cancer Research UK C53889/A25004

Trial Registration: The All Adenomas study Registration number (trial ID): ISRCTN15213649 Type of study: Retrospective cohort study
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Post-polypectomy surveillance: walking in the fogEndoscopy 2022; 54(10): 959-960
DOI: 10.1055/a-1849-2294

Referred to by:

Author commentary on Amanda J. Cross et al.Endoscopy 2022; 54(10): v31-v31
DOI: 10.1055/a-1778-9685

Abstract

Background Longer post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are associated with increased colorectal neoplasia detection at surveillance in some studies. We investigated this association to inform optimal surveillance intervals.

Methods Patients who underwent colonoscopy and post-polypectomy surveillance at 17 UK hospitals were classified as low/high risk by baseline findings. We compared detection rates of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous/villous, high grade dysplasia), high risk findings (HRFs: ≥ 2 serrated polyps/[adenomas] of which ≥ 1 is ≥ 10 mm or has [high grade] dysplasia; ≥ 5 serrated polyps/adenomas; or ≥ 1 nonpedunculated polyp ≥ 20 mm), or colorectal cancer (CRC) at surveillance colonoscopy by surveillance interval (< 18 months, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years). Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using multivariable regression.

Results Of 11 214 patients, 7216 (64 %) were low risk and 3998 (36 %) were high risk. Among low risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 7.8 %, 3.7 %, and 1.1 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma detection increased with increasing surveillance interval, reaching 9.8 % with a 6-year interval (P trend < 0.001). Among high risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 15.3 %, 10.0 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma and CRC detection rates (P trends < 0.001) increased with increasing surveillance interval; RRs (95 % confidence intervals) for CRC were 1.54 (0.68–3.48), 4.44 (1.95–10.08), and 5.80 (2.51–13.40) with 3-, 4-, and 5-year intervals, respectively, versus an interval of < 18 months.

Conclusions Metachronous neoplasia was uncommon among low risk patients, even with long surveillance intervals, supporting recommendations for no surveillance in these patients. For high risk patients, a 3-year surveillance interval would ensure timely CRC detection.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 05 February 2021

Accepted after revision: 26 January 2022

Article published online:
11 April 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Rutter MD, East J, Rees CJ. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines. Gut 2020; 69: 201-223
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC. et al. Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 463-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau J-M. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-864
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44 : SE151-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 687-700
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Jover R, Bretthauer M. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02319928. European Polyp Surveillance Trial (EPoS). Bethesda, Maryland: U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2014 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02319928 . Accessed: 25th March 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Atkin W, Brenner A, Martin J. et al. The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations. Health Technol Assess 2017; 21: 1-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee JL, Cha JM, Lee HM. et al. Determining the optimal surveillance interval after a colonoscopic polypectomy for the Korean population?. Intest Res 2017; 15: 109-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pinsky PF, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL. et al. The yield of surveillance colonoscopy by adenoma history and time to examination. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 86-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ. et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. New Engl J Med 1993; 328: 901-906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chung SJ, Kim YS, Yang SY. et al. Five-year risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia after initial colonoscopy according to the baseline risk stratification: a prospective study in 2452 asymptomatic Koreans. Gut 2011; 60: 1537-1543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cubiella J, Carballo F, Portillo I. et al. Incidence of advanced neoplasia during surveillance in high- and intermediate-risk groups of the European colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 995-1002
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Atkin WS, Wooldrage K, Brenner A. et al. Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 823-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cross AJ, Robbins EC, Pack K. et al. Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Gut 2020; 69: 1645-1658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cross AJ, Robbins EC, Pack K. et al. Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines. Gut 2021; 70: 2307-2320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Atkin WS, Saunders BP. Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 2002; 51 (Suppl. 05) V6-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hossain E, Alkandari A, Bhandari P. Future of endoscopy: brief review of current and future endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal lesions. Dig Endosc 2020; 32: 503-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 StataCorp LP, 2013; Stata Statistical Software: Release 13; Texas, USA.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cross AJ. Retrospective cohort study to examine the long-term colorectal cancer risk and surveillance requirements following diagnosis of adenomas (The All Adenomas Study). National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme 15/80/13. London: NIHR. 2017 https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/158013/#/ . Accessed: 25th March 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Public Health England (PHE) screening. Bowel cancer screening: programme overview. London: PHE; 2015 [updated June 2019]. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme-overview . Accessed: 25th March 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 East JE, Atkin WS, Bateman AC. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut 2017; 66: 1181-1196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar