The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. ...1: ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 - 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends a 3 - 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5: ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).
Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been ...validated, and their importance remains uncertain.
We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.
A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval CI, 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons).
The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy.
Current guidelines recommend a 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies, but evidence is limited.
To assess the long-term risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and death from CRC after a high- and ...low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy.
Observational study.
Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program.
Average-risk individuals aged 50 to 66 years who had a single negative colonoscopy (no neoplastic findings).
Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of CRC after high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy included a complete examination, with adequate bowel preparation, performed by endoscopists with an adenoma detection rate of 20% or greater.
Among 165 887 individuals followed for up to 17.4 years, CRC incidence (0.28 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.30) and mortality (0.19 CI, 0.16 to 0.21) were 72% and 81% lower, respectively, than in the general population. High-quality examination resulted in 2-fold lower CRC incidence (SIR, 0.16 CI, 0.13 to 0.20) and mortality (SMR, 0.10 CI, 0.06 to 0.14) than low-quality examination (SIR, 0.32 CI, 0.29 to 0.35; SMR, 0.22 CI, 0.18 to 0.25). In multivariable analysis, the hazard ratios for CRC incidence after high-quality versus low-quality colonoscopy were 0.55 (CI, 0.35 to 0.86) for 0 to 5 years, 0.54 (CI, 0.38 to 0.77) for 5.1 to 10 years, and 0.46 (CI, 0.25 to 0.86) for 10 to 17.4 years. Only after high-quality colonoscopy did the SIR and SMR for 10.1 to 17.4 years of follow-up not differ compared with earlier observation periods.
The general population was used as the comparison group.
A single negative screening colonoscopy was associated with reduced CRC incidence and mortality for up to 17.4 years. Only high-quality colonoscopy yielded profound and stable reductions in CRC incidence and mortality throughout the entire follow-up.
Polish Ministry of Health.
This study aimed to develop and validate a model to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in Caucasian patients.
We performed a cross-sectional analysis of database ...records for 40-year-old to 66-year-old patients who entered a national primary colonoscopy-based screening programme for colorectal cancer in 73 centres in Poland in the year 2007. We used multivariate logistic regression to investigate the associations between clinical variables and the presence of advanced neoplasia in a randomly selected test set, and confirmed the associations in a validation set. We used model coefficients to develop a risk score for detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia.
Advanced colorectal neoplasia was detected in 2544 of the 35,918 included participants (7.1%). In the test set, a logistic-regression model showed that independent risk factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia were: age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, cigarette smoking (p<0.001 for these four factors), and Body Mass Index (p=0.033). In the validation set, the model was well calibrated (ratio of expected to observed risk of advanced neoplasia: 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.06)) and had moderate discriminatory power (c-statistic 0.62). We developed a score that estimated the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in the validation set, from 1.32% for patients scoring 0, to 19.12% for patients scoring 7-8.
Developed and internally validated score consisting of simple clinical factors successfully estimates the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic Caucasian patients. Once externally validated, it may be useful for counselling or designing primary prevention studies.
Recommendations for colorectal-cancer screening are based solely on age and family history of cancer, not sex.
We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the data from a large colonoscopy-based ...screening program that included 50,148 participants who were 40 to 66 years of age. People 40 to 49 years of age were eligible only if they had a family history of cancer of any type. Of the 43,042 participants 50 to 66 years of age, 13.3% reported a family history of colorectal cancer, as did 66.3% of the 7106 participants who were 40 to 49 years of age. We defined advanced neoplasia as cancer or adenoma that was at least 10 mm in diameter, had high-grade dysplasia, or had villous or tubulovillous histologic characteristics, or any combination thereof. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify associations between participants' characteristics and advanced neoplasia in a primary (or derivation) data set, and we confirmed the associations in a secondary (or validation) data set.
Advanced neoplasia was detected in 2553 (5.9%) participants 50 to 66 years of age and in 243 (3.4%) participants 40 to 49 years of age. The rate of complications during colonoscopy was 0.1%, and no participants died. In the validation set, a logistic-regression model showed that male sex was independently associated with advanced neoplasia (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52 to 1.98; P<0.001). In each age group (40 to 49 years, 50 to 54 years, 55 to 59 years, and 60 to 66 years), the number of persons who would have to undergo colorectal-cancer screening in order to detect one advanced neoplasia was significantly lower in men than in women (23 vs. 36, 17 vs. 28, 12 vs. 22, and 10 vs. 18, respectively).
We detected advanced neoplasia at a significantly higher rate in men than in women, which may warrant refinement of the screening recommendations for colorectal cancer.
Gastric cancer (GC) remains the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related death globally. In 2022, GC fell into the scope of the updated EU recommendations for ...targeted cancer screening. Given the growing awareness of the GC burden, we aimed to review the existing screening strategies for GC in high-risk regions and discuss potentially applicable modalities in countries with low-to-intermediate incidence.
The references for this Review article were identified through searches of PubMed with the search terms "gastric cancer", "stomach cancer", "Helicobacter pylori", and "screening" over the period from 1995 until August 2022.
As
(
)-induced gastritis is the primary step in the development of GC, the focus on GC prevention may be directed toward testing for and treating this infection. Such a strategy may be appealing in countries with low- and intermediate- GC incidence. Other biomarker-based approaches to identify at-risk individuals in such regions are being evaluated. Within high-incidence areas, both primary endoscopic screening and population-based
"test-and-treat" strategies represent cost-effective models.
Given the significant variations in GC incidence and healthcare resources around the globe, screening strategies for GC should be adjusted to the actual conditions in each region. While several proven tools exist for accurate GC diagnosis, a universal modality for the screening of GC populations remains elusive.
PDF
