Cargando…
Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines
OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for ‘high-risk’ patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is ‘advanced’ (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-gr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588296/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33674342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323411 |
_version_ | 1784598414149812224 |
---|---|
author | Cross, Amanda J Robbins, Emma C Pack, Kevin Stenson, Iain Patel, Bhavita Rutter, Matthew D Veitch, Andrew M Saunders, Brian P Duffy, Stephen W Wooldrage, Kate |
author_facet | Cross, Amanda J Robbins, Emma C Pack, Kevin Stenson, Iain Patel, Bhavita Rutter, Matthew D Veitch, Andrew M Saunders, Brian P Duffy, Stephen W Wooldrage, Kate |
author_sort | Cross, Amanda J |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for ‘high-risk’ patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is ‘advanced’ (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; ‘low-risk’ patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: Among 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2–90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60). CONCLUSION: These guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8588296 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85882962021-11-23 Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines Cross, Amanda J Robbins, Emma C Pack, Kevin Stenson, Iain Patel, Bhavita Rutter, Matthew D Veitch, Andrew M Saunders, Brian P Duffy, Stephen W Wooldrage, Kate Gut Endoscopy OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for ‘high-risk’ patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is ‘advanced’ (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; ‘low-risk’ patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: Among 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2–90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60). CONCLUSION: These guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12 2021-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8588296/ /pubmed/33674342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323411 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Endoscopy Cross, Amanda J Robbins, Emma C Pack, Kevin Stenson, Iain Patel, Bhavita Rutter, Matthew D Veitch, Andrew M Saunders, Brian P Duffy, Stephen W Wooldrage, Kate Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines |
title | Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines |
title_full | Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines |
title_fullStr | Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines |
title_full_unstemmed | Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines |
title_short | Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines |
title_sort | colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 uk post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines |
topic | Endoscopy |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588296/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33674342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323411 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT crossamandaj colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT robbinsemmac colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT packkevin colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT stensoniain colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT patelbhavita colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT ruttermatthewd colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT veitchandrewm colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT saundersbrianp colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT duffystephenw colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines AT wooldragekate colorectalcancerriskfollowingpolypectomyinamulticentreretrospectivecohortstudyanevaluationofthe2020ukpostpolypectomysurveillanceguidelines |