scholarly journals Post-Polypectomy Colonoscopy Surveillance

Colonoscopy ◽  
10.5772/19276 ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung Noh
Keyword(s):  
Colonoscopy Surveillance

Automated identification and assignment of colonoscopy surveillance recommendations for individuals with colorectal polyps

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Peterson ◽  
Folasade P. May ◽  
Odet Kachikian ◽  
Camille Soroudi ◽  
Bita Naini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Automated Identification ◽  
Colonoscopy Surveillance

scholarly journals ‘How compliant do we want to be with the colonoscopy surveillance guidelines?’

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 830-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. C. Chivers ◽  
P. S. Basnyat ◽  
N. Taffinder
Keyword(s):  
Colonoscopy Surveillance

scholarly journals Colorectal Cancer Surveillance after Index Colonoscopy: Guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 224-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond Leddin ◽  
Robert Enns ◽  
Robert Hilsden ◽  
Carlo A Fallone ◽  
Linda Rabeneck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Health Care Environment ◽  
Canadian Association ◽  
The Us ◽  
Colonoscopy Surveillance

BACKGROUND: Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care.METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines.RESULTS: The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonos-copy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonos-copy at an interval of five to 10 years.DISCUSSION: The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.

Benefits and harms of colonoscopy surveillance following colonoscopic polypectomy: report from the National Polyp Study

2000 ◽  
Vol 95 (9) ◽  
pp. 2549-2550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felice Schnoll-Sussman ◽  
Melissa D.A. Carlson ◽  
M.B. A ◽  
Ann G. Zauber ◽  
Sidney J. Winawer
Keyword(s):  
Colonoscopic Polypectomy ◽  
Colonoscopy Surveillance

scholarly journals Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study

Gut ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (9) ◽  
pp. 1642-1652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda J Cross ◽  
Kate Wooldrage ◽  
Emma C Robbins ◽  
Ines Kralj-Hans ◽  
Eilidh MacRae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Cancer Screening Programme ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Bowel Cancer Screening ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Colonoscopy Surveillance ◽  
Advanced Adenomas ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Study

ObjectiveThe English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services.DesignIntermediate-risk patients (60–72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012–December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance.Results74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively.ConclusionsReplacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%–40% of CRCs and 40%–70% of AAs.Trial registration numberISRCTN18040196; Results.

scholarly journals Distinct mutational profile of Lynch syndrome colorectal cancers diagnosed under regular colonoscopy surveillance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysel Ahadova ◽  
Pauline L. Pfuderer ◽  
Maarit Ahtiainen ◽  
Alexej Ballhausen ◽  
Lena Bohaumilitzky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lynch Syndrome ◽  
Tp53 Mutation ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Molecular Subtypes ◽  
Colorectal Cancers ◽  
Mutational Signatures ◽  
Short Intervals ◽  
Colonoscopy Surveillance ◽  
Mmr Deficiency ◽  
Kras Codon

Background Regular colonoscopy even with short intervals does not prevent all colorectal cancers (CRC) in Lynch syndrome (LS). In the present study, we asked whether cancers detected under regular colonoscopy surveillance (incident cancers) are phenotypically different from cancers detected at first colonoscopy (prevalent cancers). Methods We analyzed clinical, histological, immunological and mutational characteristics, including panel sequencing and high through-put coding microsatellite (cMS) analysis, in 28 incident and 67 prevalent LS CRCs. Results Incident cancers presented with lower UICC and T stage compared to prevalent cancers (p<0.0005). The majority of incident cancers (21/28) were detected after previous colonoscopy without any pathological findings. On the molecular level, incident cancers presented with a significantly lower KRAS codon 12/13 (1/23, 4.3% vs. 11/21, 52%; p=0.0005) and pathogenic TP53 mutation frequency (0/17, 0% vs. 7/21, 33.3%; p=0.0108,) compared to prevalent cancers; 10/17 (58.8%) incident cancers harbored one or more truncating APC mutations, all showing mutational signatures of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency. The proportion of MMR deficiency-related mutational events was significantly higher in incident compared to prevalent CRC (p=0.018). Conclusions LS CRC diagnosed under regular colonoscopy surveillance are biologically distinct, suggesting that the preventive effectiveness of colonoscopy in LS depends on the molecular subtypes of tumors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document