Predictors of advanced proximal neoplasia in persons with abnormal screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The relationship between distal and proximal colonic findings is uncertain. Thus, there is no consensus on which findings on screening flexible sigmoidoscopy should trigger colonoscopy. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to assess the relationship between distal and proximal colonic findings. RESULTS: A total of 8802 subjects had an abnormal baseline sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy follow-up. Subjects with <10-mm single or multiple tubular adenomas had similar risks for advanced proximal neoplasia as subjects with hyperplastic polyps or other benign lesions (3%-5%). Subjects with large (>or=10 mm), villous, or severely dysplastic distal adenomas had similarly elevated risks for advanced proximal neoplasia (11%-12%). Multivariate logistic modeling showed a significantly increased risk for advanced proximal neoplasia associated with the presence of a large tubular (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.4) or villous distal adenoma (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.1-3.5) but not with the presence of one (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3) or multiple (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.2) <10-mm tubular distal adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Among subjects with a polypoid lesion on screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, those with small tubular distal adenomas are at similar risk for advanced proximal neoplasia as those without distal adenomas. Subjects with a large, villous, or dysplastic distal adenoma are at increased risk. A strategy that encourages individuals with small tubular adenomas on sigmoidoscopy to undergo follow-up colonoscopy and excludes those with nonadenomatous lesions is of questionable validity, because both groups are at similar risk for advanced proximal neoplasia.     

Predictive value of diminutive colonic adenoma trial: the PREDICT trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diminutive adenomas (1-9 mm in diameter) are frequently found during colon cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). This trial assessed the predictive value of these diminutive adenomas for advanced adenomas in the proximal colon. METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective cohort trial, we matched 200 patients with normal FS and 200 patients with diminutive adenomas on FS for age and gender. All patients underwent colonoscopy. The presence of advanced adenomas (adenoma >or= 10 mm in diameter, villous adenoma, adenoma with high grade dysplasia, and colon cancer) and adenomas (any size) was recorded. Before colonoscopy, patients completed questionnaires about risk factors for adenomas. RESULTS: The prevalence of advanced adenomas in the proximal colon was similar in patients with diminutive adenomas and patients with normal FS (6% vs. 5.5%, respectively) (relative risk, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-2.6). Diminutive adenomas on FS did not accurately predict advanced adenomas in the proximal colon: sensitivity, 52% (95% CI, 32%-72%); specificity, 50% (95% CI, 49%-51%); positive predictive value, 6% (95% CI, 4%-8%); and negative predictive value, 95% (95% CI, 92%-97%). Male gender (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.61) was associated with an increased risk of proximal colon adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Diminutive adenomas on sigmoidoscopy may not accurately predict advanced adenomas in the proximal colon.     

Is there a role for sigmoidoscopy in symptomatic patients? Analysis of a study correlating distal and proximal colonic neoplasias detected by colonoscopy in a symptomatic population

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam to investigate patients with colonic complaints. However, its availability is limited in developing countries. Sigmoidoscopy has been advocated as a first procedure in colorectal cancer screening strategies, in order to select those who need colonoscopy. AIM: To study the correlation between distal and proximal colonic neoplasias in symptomatic patients 50 years or older and patients 40 to 49 years old who underwent colonoscopy at a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit in 1999 and 2000 with the purpose to evaluate its role in a symptomatic population. METHODS: All colonoscopies performed in our Department in 1999-2000 were reviewed. The distal colon was defined as the colonic segment aboral to the splenic flexure. Advanced neoplasias were defined as adenomas larger than 10 millimeters and adenocarcinomas. RESULTS: Of the 2,701 colonoscopies retrieved, 1,125 were enrolled in this study. Prevalence rates for adenoma, advanced adenoma and carcinoma were 28.9%, 4.6% and 4% in the group of 830 patients 50 years or older (mean age 65 years, 491 women). The finding of one small (<10 mm) adenoma in the distal bowel doubled the likelihood of finding a proximal neoplasia (OR = 2.12, 95% CI, 1.27-3.54), and multiple (OR = 3.99, 95% CI, 1.72-9.28) or advanced (OR = 3.73, 95% CI, 1.81-7.7) adenomas increased this risk even further. Of the patients without adenoma or carcinoma in the distal colon, 1.93% had proximal advanced neoplasia. In the group of 40 to 49-year-old patients (n = 395; mean age 44.8 years, 208 women) the prevalence of adenomas (14.9%), advanced adenomas (3.4%), and carcinomas (1.7%) was lower. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of finding a proximal lesion is greater in patients with distal neoplasias. This likelihood is further increased when adenomas are multiple or larger than 10 mm. One out of 52 patients 50 years or older with an apparently normal distal colon has advanced proximal neoplasia. Sigmoidoscopy is not an adequate exam for symptomatic patients aged 50 years or older.     

Colonoscopic surveillance of patients with a family history of colon cancer and a history of normal colonoscopy: is a five-year interval between colonoscopies appropriate?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with a family history of colon cancer are advised to undergo surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after a normal screening colonoscopy. No prospective study has evaluated the prevalence of adenomas found at surveillance colonoscopy in these patients. The aims of this trial were (1) to determine the percentage of these patients with adenomas; (2) to determine the percentage of these patients with advanced adenomas (i.e., villous adenomas, adenomas > or = 10 mm, adenomas with high grade dysplasia); and (3) to assess risk factors for adenomas in these patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a family history of colorectal cancer and a normal screening colonoscopy 5 years earlier were offered a surveillance colonoscopy. Patients also completed a questionnaire about potential risk factors for adenomas. Multiple logistic regression analysis assessed associations between risk factors and adenomas. RESULTS: One hundred patients completed the trial. The male/female ratio was 54/46, the mean age was 56.2 +/- 8.8 years, and 91% were white. Eight percent (8 of 100) of patients had advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy, and 33% (33 of 100) had adenomas. Among patients with adenomas, 39% (13 of 33) had no adenomas in the left side of the colon (i.e., distal to the splenic flexure). Among patients with advanced adenomas, 25% (2 of 8) had no adenomas in the left side of the colon. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed a significant negative association between adenomas and NSAID use (odds ratio, 0.26 [95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.79]), and male gender had a positive association with adenomas (odds ratio, 2.79 [95% confidence interval, 1.01-7.74]). CONCLUSIONS: These data support a 5-year interval between screening and surveillance colonoscopy for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer and a normal screening colonoscopy.     

Flat adenomas in the National Polyp Study: is there increased risk for high-grade dysplasia initially or during surveillance?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The flat adenoma may be a more aggressive pathway in colorectal carcinogenesis. Sessile adenomas from the National Polyp Study cohort were reclassified histopathologically as flat or polypoid and compared with initial and surveillance pathology. METHODS: A total of 933 sessile adenomas detected during 1980-1990 were reclassified as follows: (1) adenoma thickness (AT): < or =1.3 mm, and (2) adenoma ratio (AR): adenoma thickness <2x normal mucosa thickness. Logistic regression was used to assess whether flat adenomas had an effect on risk for high-grade dysplasia initially, and a Cox proportional hazards model assessed the risk for advanced adenomas at surveillance. RESULTS: The analysis encompassed 8401 person-years of follow-up evaluation. AT and AR measures of adenoma flatness were 95% concordant. By the AT measure, flat adenomas (n = 474) represented 27% of all baseline adenomas. Flat adenomas were found to be no more likely to exhibit high-grade dysplasia than sessile (polypoid) or pedunculated adenomas, the odds ratio for high-grade dysplasia was 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-5.47; P = 0.23) for sessile (polypoid) vs. flat adenomas and 1.78 (95% CI, 0.63-5.02; P = 0.28) for pedunculated vs. flat adenomas adjusted for size, villous component, and location, and corrected for correlation of risk within an individual patient. Patients with flat adenomas at initial colonoscopy were not at greater risk for advanced adenomas at surveillance compared with those with polypoid adenomas only, the odds ratio was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.4-1.42; P = .39), adjusted for multiplicity, age, and family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Flat adenomas identified in the National Polyp Study cohort at baseline were not associated with a higher risk for high-grade dysplasia initially, or for advanced adenomas at surveillance.     

Korean guidelines for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance

Post-polypectomy surveillance has become a major indication for colonoscopy as a result of increased use of screening colonoscopy in Korea. However, because the medical resource is limited, and the first screening colonoscopy produces the greatest effect on reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, there is a need to increase the efficiency of postpolypectomy surveillance. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was used to address all available evidences to delineate the predictors for advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy. Based on the results of review of the evidences, we elucidated the high risk findings of the index colonoscopy as follows: 1) 3 or more adenomas, 2) any adenoma larger than 10 mm, 3) any tubulovillous or villous adenoma, 4) any adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, and 5) any serrated polyps larger than 10 mm. In patients without any high-risk findings at the index colonoscopy, surveillance colonoscopy should be performed five years after index colonoscopy. In patients with one or more high risk findings, surveillance colonoscopy should be performed three years after polypectomy. However, the surveillance interval can be shortened considering the quality of the index colonoscopy, the completeness of polyp removal, the patient's general condition, and family and medical history. This practical guideline cannot totally take the place of clinical judgments made by practitioners and should be revised and supplemented in the future as new evidence becomes available.     

Risk and cause of interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopic polypectomy

Background: To investigate the cause and risk of interval colorectal cancer (ICC) in patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after colonoscopic polypectomy. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data (endoscopy, pathology, demography) of patients who received surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after colonoscopic polypectomy. Results: Among 1,794 patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after colonoscopic polypectomy, 14 suffered from ICC. The mean follow-up time was 2.67 years and the incidence density of ICC was 2.9 cases per 1,000 person-years. 50% of ICCs were found in patients in whom adenomas had been incompletely removed by endoscopic therapy, 36% were missed cancers, and 14% were new cancers. Age >60 years (OR 2.97, 95% CI 2.31-3.82) was significantly associated with interval cancer on the surveillance colonoscopy as were advanced adenoma (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01-1.62), the presence of villous (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03-1.85) and high-grade dysplasia (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.07-2.42). Conclusions: Among patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after polypectomy, the incidence density of ICC was 2.9 cases per 1,000 person-years. The majority of interval cancers originated from incomplete resection of advanced adenomas and missed cancers, which can be prevented by improving endoscopic techniques and selecting an appropriate follow-up time interval.     

First-degree relatives of patients with advanced colorectal adenomas have an increased prevalence of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of colorectal cancer in relatives of patients with adenomatous colonic polyps is not well defined. This study assessed whether finding colonic neoplasia during screening colonoscopy was related to the family history of colorectal cancer among the participants' parents and siblings. METHODS: Self-reported family history of colorectal cancer was recorded for all participants in a screening colonoscopy study. The size and location of all polyps were recorded before their removal and histologic examination. Participants were grouped according to the most advanced lesion detected. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred twenty-one patients underwent complete colonoscopic examination. Subjects with adenomas were more likely to have a family history of colorectal cancer than were subjects without polyps (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.70). The finding of a small (<1 cm) tubular adenoma as the most advanced lesion was associated with only a modest increase in the OR of colorectal cancer in family members (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99-1.61), but the presence of an advanced adenoma was associated with a higher OR (OR, 1.62;5% CI, 1.16-2.26). Younger age of adenoma diagnosis was not related to a higher prevalence of a family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Relatives patients with advanced colorectal adenomas have an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas should be counseled about the increased risk of colorectal cancer among their relatives.     

Adenoma characteristics as risk factors for recurrence of advanced adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The link between adenoma characteristics at baseline colonoscopy and adenoma recurrence is poorly understood. We assessed whether the number, size, location, or histology of resected adenomas was related to the probability of recurrence of advanced lesions. METHODS: Analyses were based on 1287 men and women in the wheat bran fiber (WBF) study, a randomized, double-blind trial of WBF as a means of decreasing the probability of adenoma recurrence over a period of 3 years. Multiple logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Recurrence of advanced adenomas (>1 cm or tubulovillous/villous histology) was higher among individuals with adenomas >1 cm compared with those with adenomas <0.5 cm (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.34-5.42) and among those with proximal than those with distal adenomas (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67). No association was observed for adenoma number or histology. A shift in location from the distal colon and rectum at baseline (54.6%) to more proximal recurrent adenomas (45.2%), including advanced lesions (42.8%), was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Large or proximally located adenomas are important indicators of recurrence of advanced lesions. Because most recurrences were detected in the proximal colon, careful surveillance of this area is warranted.     

Do patients with rectosigmoid adenomas 5 mm or less in diameter need total colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND: The need for colonoscopy in the care of patients with rectosigmoid adenoma 5 mm or less in diameter is still debatable. METHODS: We estimated the prevalence of proximal adenomas among 3052 consecutive subjects undergoing total colonoscopy. Rectosigmoid adenoma was classified as diminutive (5 mm), small (6 to 10 mm), or large (>/=11 mm). Advanced proximal adenoma was 10 mm in diameter or larger, or with a villous component, severe dysplasia, or infiltrating adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Proximal adenoma was found in 212 of 2483 patients (8.5%, 95% CI [7.5, 9.7]) without distal neoplastic polyps, 49 of 214 (22.9%, 95% CI [17.6, 29.2]) with diminutive, 44 of 174 (25.3%, 95% CI [19.1, 32.5] with small, and 70 of 181 (38.7%, 95% CI [31.6, 46.2]) with large distal adenoma. Advanced proximal adenoma was found in 49 (2.0%, 95% CI [1.5, 2.6]), 8 (3.7%, 95% CI [1.7, 7.5]), 17 (9.8%, 95% CI [6.0, 15.4]), and 29 patients (16.0%, 95% [11.2, 22.4]), respectively. In patients with distal adenoma risk for proximal lesions increased with increasing age, size, and number of distal adenomas (p = 0.01). Size of distal adenoma was the strongest predictor of the presence of proximal advanced adenoma (multivariate analyses). CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical setting, the decision to perform colonoscopy should take into account proximal lesions of clinical interest, life expectancy, costs, and risks associated with the procedure. When detection of advanced proximal adenoma is the goal, presence of distal diminutive adenoma alone might not be an indication for total colonoscopy.     

Predictors of proximal neoplasia in patients without distal adenomatous pathology

BACKGROUND: Previous colorectal cancer screening studies have observed that some patients may have advanced proximal neoplasia without distal findings. Since these studies have included only gender, age, and family history as risk factors, they are limited in their ability to identify predictors of isolated proximal neoplasia. METHODS: Data were collected from the charts of 1,988 patients who presented for colonoscopy. Information gathered included endoscopic findings, histology, known risk factors for colorectal neoplasia, and smoking pattern. Our main outcome was the presence of proximal adenomatous neoplasia in patients who had no distal adenomas. We defined significant neoplasia as adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, villous polyps, adenomas 1 cm or greater or more than two adenomas of any size. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients had isolated significant proximal neoplasia that would have been missed on a flexible sigmoidoscopy. While patients older than 60 yr had a greater risk for this neoplasia (odds ratio = 3.01: 95% CI = 1.66-4.23; p < 0.001), those who took a daily aspirin had a reduced risk (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.30-0.88; p < 0.05). A family history of colorectal cancer increased the patient's risk of having any adenomas (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.33-3.40; p < 0.01) or villous tissue (OR = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.27-3.51; p < 0.05) in the proximal colon without distal findings. Smoking was associated with an increased risk of large (> 1 cm) isolated proximal tubular polyps (OR = 2.71; 95% CI = 1.64-4.46; p < 0.01) as well as isolated significant proximal neoplasia (OR = 2.30; 95% CI = 1.59-3.31; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Age greater than 60 yr, a history of at least 10 pack-years of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer increased the risk of finding significant proximal polyps in patients without distal pathology.     

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings discovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which showed clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance take place 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003 these guidelines were updated and colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, stratification at baseline into low risk and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have shown that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was designed to address all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be stratified more definitely at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower risk or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either 3 or more adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or an adenoma 1 cm or larger in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have 1 or 2 small (<1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up evaluation in 5-10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up evaluation, as for average-risk people. There have been recent studies that have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase the use of the recommendations by endoscopists. The adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.     

Incidence of advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy in patients with a personal history of colon adenomas: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines stratify patients with a personal history of adenomas as low risk (ie, 1-2 small [<10 mm] adenomas at index colonoscopy) or high risk (> or =3 small adenomas or advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy) for recurrent advanced adenomas. Guidelines recommend longer intervals between surveillance colonoscopies for low-risk patients, but physicians frequently perform surveillance colonoscopy at shorter intervals for these patients. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to perform a meta-analysis about the incidence of advanced adenomas at 3-year surveillance colonoscopy among high- and low-risk patients. METHODS: Computer searches of MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, and EMBASE were performed to identify appropriate studies. Study selection criteria were (1) study design--prospective or registry-based study, (2) study population--patients with a personal history of adenomas, and (3) intervention--completion of surveillance colonoscopy at an interval of > or =2 years. Data were extracted on (1) incidence of advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy, (2) interval between colonoscopies, and (3) risk factors associated with recurrent adenomas. After the validity of study design was assessed and independent, duplicate data extraction was performed from selected trials, summary relative risks (RR) for the incidence of advanced adenomas at 3-year colonoscopy were calculated. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met study selection criteria, but only 5 studies stratified surveillance colonoscopy results according to findings at the index colonoscopy. Patients with > or =3 adenomas at index colonoscopy were more likely to have recurrent advanced adenomas than were patients with 1 to 2 adenomas: RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.07-5.97. Patients with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia at index colonoscopy were also at increased risk for recurrent advanced adenomas: RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06-3.19. In the individual studies, increasing size of adenomas and increasing number of adenomas at index colonoscopy were the most commonly reported risk factors associated with recurrent advanced adenomas. No studies stratified surveillance colonoscopy results according to the definitions of low risk and high risk used in current guidelines. CONCLUSION: Few published studies stratify the incidence of advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy according to index colonoscopy findings. In the future, large prospective studies or studies using pooled data from existing randomized controlled trial databases or polyp registries should be used to better define which patients are at low risk for advanced adenoma recurrence.     

Ki-ras proto-oncogene mutations in sporadic colorectal adenomas: relationship to histologic and clinical characteristics

BACXKGROUND & AIMS: The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between Ki-ras mutations in colorectal adenomas and characteristics of both the subject (age, gender, and family/personal history of colonic neoplasia) and the adenoma (multiplicity, size, location, and histologic features). METHODS: Ki-ras mutations were detected by direct sequencing in 738 adenomatous polyps removed at baseline from 639 participants in a nutritional trial of adenoma recurrence. RESULTS: Ki-ras mutations were detected in 17.2% of the adenomas. Ki-ras mutations were unrelated to gender, family, or personal history of colonic neoplasia, location within the colorectum, or adenoma multiplicity, but were more common in older subjects (P = 0.01 for trend), in larger adenomas (P < 0.0001 for trend), in adenomas with villous histology (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-4.9 vs. tubular), and in adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (32.0% vs. 13.6%; OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6 vs. low-grade dysplasia). Multivariate analysis showed Ki-ras mutations to be independently associated with subject age (P = 0.01 for trend), tubulovillous/villous histology (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.7), and high-grade dysplasia (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1). Adenoma size was not independently related to Ki-ras mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Ki-ras mutations are associated with the histologic features of adenoma progression (villous histology and high-grade dysplasia) rather than with adenoma growth.     

Whites and Blacks Have Similar Risk of Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia

Background

Current guidelines for surveillance of colonic neoplasia are based on data from predominantly white populations, yet whether these recommendations are applicable to blacks is unknown.

Aim

To define the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) among whites and blacks undergoing surveillance colonoscopy.

Methods

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of asymptomatic, average-risk non-Hispanic white (N = 246) and non-Hispanic black (N = 203) patients with colorectal neoplasia who underwent baseline screening colonoscopy between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2007, and a surveillance colonoscopy before December 31, 2010, at an academic safety-net hospital. The main outcome measure was the prevalence of ACN, defined as a tubular adenoma or sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) ≥10 mm, any adenoma with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, any serrated lesion with dysplasia, or invasive cancer at surveillance.

Results

During a median follow-up of 4.3 years, the overall prevalence of ACN at surveillance was similar among blacks and whites (11.3 vs. 9.8 %; P = 0.59) with an odds ratio of 1.18 (95 % CI 0.65–2.26). Blacks and whites with non-advanced neoplasia had similar rates of ACN at the 1–3, 4–5, and >5 year follow-up intervals. Blacks with ACN or multiplicity at baseline had higher rates of ACN at the 1- to 3-year interval compared with whites, but the difference was non-significant (26.7 vs. 12.5 %; P = 0.32). No interval cancers were observed for either group.

Conclusions

The overall prevalence of ACN was similar between non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites undergoing surveillance in a safety-net healthcare setting suggesting that current surveillance guidelines are appropriate for both blacks and whites.     

Distribution of colon neoplasia in Chinese patients: implications for endoscopic screening strategies

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to measure the prevalence and distribution of colonic neoplasia in Chinese adults, and to estimate the sensitivity of sigmoidoscopic screening strategies for detecting those with advanced neoplasia. METHODS: Asymptomatic, average-risk Chinese adults aged 50 years or older underwent screening colonoscopy. The prevalence and distribution of colonic neoplasia and advanced neoplasia (defined as an adenoma >or=10 mm or with villous, high-grade dysplastic, or malignant features) were reviewed retrospectively and the outcomes of various sigmoidoscopic screening strategies estimated. RESULTS: Of 1,382 individuals (833 men, 549 women; mean age 58.8 years) included, 243 (18%) had colorectal neoplasia and 72 (5.2%) had advanced neoplasia. Neoplasia prevalence was significantly higher in male and older patients. No significant differences were observed in neoplasia distribution between men and women. Overall, 24 patients had advanced neoplasia in the proximal colon, of whom four had synchronous distal neoplasia. The estimated sensitivity for detecting patients with advanced neoplasia was 72% if we assumed screening sigmoidoscopy was performed, with follow-up colonoscopy for those with distal neoplasia; 165 patients would need to undergo colonoscopy. If, instead, we assumed follow-up colonoscopy was done only for patients with distal advanced neoplasia, the estimated sensitivity would decrease slightly to 71%, but the number of colonoscopies would decrease substantially to 51. CONCLUSION: In average-risk Chinese adults, screening sigmoidoscopy is estimated to detect more than two-thirds of patients with advanced neoplasia. In Chinese societies with limited health-care resources, performing colonoscopy only on patients with distal advanced neoplasia is a screening approach that optimizes the return rate on colonoscopic capacity.     

Screening colonoscopy among persons 50 to 60 years of age with and without familial risk of colorectal cancer - a prospective multicenter trial

BACKGROUND: In Germany screening colonoscopy was introduced into the National program on colorectal cancer prevention in Oktober 2002. The prevalence of neoplasia in patients with and without familiar risk was determined together with patient satisfaction with screening colonoscopy. Methods: Asymptomatic subjects from 50 to 60 years underwent screening colonoscopy and were stratified in two groups with and without familiar risk (first-degree relatives with CRC) in a multicenter trial among German gastroenterologists. Advanced neoplasia was defined as an adenoma at least 1 cm in diameter, a villous adenoma, an adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer. After recovery from sedation all subjects were asked if they would agree to a control colonoscopy and the pain score was recorded on a scale from 0 to 6. Results: A total of 557 subjects (322 at average risk and 235 with familiar risk) underwent screening colonoscopy. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia in subjects without/with familiar risk was not significantly different in persons from 50 to 54 years (9 vs. 15 %) in contrast to persons from 55 to 60 years (10 vs. 22 %, p = 0.004) where the relative risk was doubled. Compared to younger patients, the prevalence of all neoplasia (including small adenomas) was significantly different only for older patients with familiar risk (44 vs. 23 %, p < 0.0001). The mean value of the pain-score was 0.76 + 1.0. Subjects examined without medication had significantly higher pain scores than subjects under medication. Colonoscopy performed under disoprivan resulted in similar pain-scores compared to midazolam at dosages > 5 mg. All patients agreed to a control colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Screening colonoscopy is an effective and well-accepted method. The high prevalence of advanced neoplasia even in persons from 50 to 54 years suggests that screening should start at the age of 50.     

Colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas: increased risk of colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of developing colorectal neoplasia is not well established among family members of individuals with large adenomas, and screening strategies remain under debate in this population. This study aimed at quantifying the risk of colorectal adenomas and cancers using colonoscopic screening in first-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas. METHODS: This case-control study was performed in 18 endoscopic units of French nonuniversity hospitals. A colonoscopy was offered to first-degree relatives of 306 index cases with adenomas > or =10 mm if they were alive, aged 40-75 years, and could be contacted by the index case. Among them, 168 were examined and matched for age, sex, and geographical area with 2 controls (n = 307). Controls were randomly selected from 1362 consecutive patients aged 40-75 years having undergone a colonoscopy for minor symptoms. RESULTS: The prevalence of large adenomas and cancers was 8.4% and 4.2%, in relatives and controls, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) associated with a history of large adenomas in relatives were 2.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-5.09) for cancers or large adenomas, 1.21 (95% CI, 0.68-2.15) for small adenomas, and 1.56 (95% CI, 0.96-2.53) for all colorectal neoplasia. The risk of large adenomas and cancers was higher in relatives of index cases younger than 60 years (OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 0.92-15.87) and when the index case had large distal adenomas (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.27-7.73). CONCLUSIONS: First-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancers or large adenomas. This result has implications for screening in this high-risk population.     

Risk related surveillance following colorectal polypectomy

BACKGROUND: Patients who have had a colorectal adenoma are likely to develop a metachronous adenoma and therefore need to be kept under surveillance. It is essential to avoid unnecessary examinations by tailoring the frequency of follow up examinations to individual risk. METHODS: A total of 3134 patients undergoing endoscopic removal of colorectal adenomas were prospectively recorded on the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Polyps between 1978 and 1996. A multivariate analysis of 1159 patients on long term follow up was performed to identify risk factors determining surveillance intervals for patients with metachronous adenomas of advanced pathology-that is, adenomas >10 mm or with high grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that sex, parental history of colorectal carcinoma, and characteristics of the initial findings-that is, size, multiplicity, and amount of villous structure-were significant predictors of metachronous adenomas of advanced pathology. On the basis of multivariate analysis, two risk groups were identified: (1) patients with no parental history of colorectal carcinoma with only small (< or = 10 mm) tubular adenomas at the initial clearing examination have a very low risk, and we estimated that 10% will develop advanced metachronous adenomas after 10 years; (2) the high risk group contained all other patients, 10% of whom will show metachronous adenomas of advanced pathology at follow up after only three years. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing metachronous adenomas with advanced pathology can be stratified for various patient and adenoma characteristics. Surveillance intervals can be scheduled for low risk (10 years) and high risk (three years) patients. Risk related follow up thus helps to avoid unnecessary examinations.     

Rectosigmoid findings are not associated with proximal colon cancer： Analysis of 6 196 consecutive cases undergoing total colonoscopy

AIM: To review the risk of proximal colon cancer in patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: We estimated the risk of advanced proximal adenomas and cancers in 6 196 consecutive patients that underwent colonoscopy (mean age 60 years, 65% males, without prior history of colorectal examination). Neoplasms were classified as diminutive adenoma (5 mm or less), small adenoma (6-9 mm), advanced adenoma (10 mm or more, with villous component or high-grade dysplasia) and cancer (invasive adenocarcinoma). The sites of neoplasms were defined as rectosigmoid (rectum and sigmoid colon) and proximal colon (from cecum to descending colon). RESULTS: The trend of the prevalence of advanced proximal adenoma was to increase with severe rectosigmoid findings, while the prevalence of proximal colon cancer did not increase with severe rectosigmoid findings. Among the 157 patients with proximal colon cancer, 74% had no neoplasm in the rectosigmoid colon. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis revealed that age was the main predictor of proximal colon cancer and existence of rectosigmoid adenoma was not a predictor of proximal colon cancer. CONCLUSION: Sigmoidoscopy is inadequate for colorectal cancer screening, especially in older populations.