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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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