结肠镜检查中大肠腺瘤的漏诊率及漏诊相关危险因素

目的 明确结肠镜检查中大肠腺瘤的漏诊率及漏诊腺瘤特征,探讨腺瘤漏诊的相关危险因素.方法 患者在初次结肠镜检查发现并切除腺瘤后120 d内进行结肠镜复查,分析2次结肠镜检查结果.记录2次结肠镜检查所见腺瘤的特征(包括大小、部位、形态、数目及病理)、患者临床特征(包括年龄、性别、结肠镜检查原因、腹部及盆腔手术史、大肠憩室病史及是否行无痛结肠镜检查)及不同的内镜操作医师.分析不同类型腺瘤在结肠镜检查中的漏诊率以及腺瘤特征、患者临床特征和内镜医师的操作水平对腺瘤漏诊的影响.结果 809例患者中271例发生腺瘤漏诊,2次结肠镜检查共检出腺瘤2134颗,漏诊腺瘤425颗,腺瘤总漏诊率为20%(425/2134);平均患者腺瘤漏诊率为33%(271/809).腺瘤体积大者,漏诊率低(P<0.01);乙状结肠、肝曲、盲肠和升结肠部位的腺瘤以及平坦型腺瘤容易漏诊(P<0.05);患者腺瘤数越多在结肠镜检查中腺瘤漏诊率越高(P<0.01);初级内镜医师与有经验内镜医师相比,其漏诊率明显增加(P<0.01).结论 结肠镜检查中存在部分腺瘤漏诊,腺瘤漏诊与腺瘤大小、形态、部位、数目以及结肠镜检查操作医师密切相关.     

结肠镜检查中大肠腺瘤的漏诊率及漏诊相关危险因素

目的 明确结肠镜检查中大肠腺瘤的漏诊率及漏诊腺瘤特征,探讨腺瘤漏诊的相关危险因素.方法 患者在初次结肠镜检查发现并切除腺瘤后120 d内进行结肠镜复查,分析2次结肠镜检查结果.记录2次结肠镜检查所见腺瘤的特征(包括大小、部位、形态、数目及病理)、患者临床特征(包括年龄、性别、结肠镜检查原因、腹部及盆腔手术史、大肠憩室病史及是否行无痛结肠镜检查)及不同的内镜操作医师.分析不同类型腺瘤在结肠镜检查中的漏诊率以及腺瘤特征、患者临床特征和内镜医师的操作水平对腺瘤漏诊的影响.结果 809例患者中271例发生腺瘤漏诊,2次结肠镜检查共检出腺瘤2134颗,漏诊腺瘤425颗,腺瘤总漏诊率为20%(425/2134);平均患者腺瘤漏诊率为33%(271/809).腺瘤体积大者,漏诊率低(P<0.01);乙状结肠、肝曲、盲肠和升结肠部位的腺瘤以及平坦型腺瘤容易漏诊(P<0.05);患者腺瘤数越多在结肠镜检查中腺瘤漏诊率越高(P<0.01);初级内镜医师与有经验内镜医师相比,其漏诊率明显增加(P<0.01).结论 结肠镜检查中存在部分腺瘤漏诊,腺瘤漏诊与腺瘤大小、形态、部位、数目以及结肠镜检查操作医师密切相关.     

老年人与中青年人大肠不同肠段息肉与腺瘤检出率相关性分析

[目的]探讨老年人及中青年人大肠中不同肠段的息肉检出率与腺瘤检出率之间的关系,为个体内镜医师改善不同肠段的结肠镜检查效率提供数据支持。[方法]回顾性分析9名个体内镜医师2013年1月~2013年6月共进行的2 419例结肠镜检查及病理资料,其中老年组（≥60岁）453例,中青年人组（〈60岁）1 966例;按照不同年龄、不同肠段分别计算9名内镜医师平均息肉检出率和腺瘤检出率,并使用皮尔逊相关系数（r）比较息肉检出率与腺瘤检出率之间的相关性。[结果]老年组平均息肉、腺瘤检出率（53.9%、30.1%）均高于中青年组平均息肉、腺瘤检出率（38.5%、19.5%）。与右半结肠比较,中青年组左半结肠各肠段的息肉检出率与腺瘤检出率更具良好的相关性。老年组回盲部（r=0.66,P〈0.05）、乙状结肠（r=0.77,P〈0.05）及直肠（r=0.47,P〈0.05）的息肉检出率与腺瘤检出率相关性较低;老年组左半结肠的腺瘤检出率（21.8%）与近端结肠（20.3%）无明显差别。[结论]我们应该提高对大肠不同肠段息肉、腺瘤检出率的关注程度;应适当放宽老年人进行结肠镜检查的适应证,提倡老年人尽量进行结肠镜检查,减少腺瘤性息肉癌变的机会,并加强老年人结肠镜检查质量。     

常规电子结肠镜检查中结肠息肉漏诊分析

目的探讨常规电子结肠镜检查中结肠息肉的漏诊情况，包括漏诊率、漏诊息肉大小、分型、部位和病理状况。方法回顾3年间在120d内接受多次结肠镜检查的结肠息肉患者的病例资料，记录患者前2次肠镜检查的息肉数，漏诊息肉数，计算漏诊率。结果符合要求的患者共143例，男92例，女51例，年龄23～82岁；漏诊息肉数共126枚，漏诊率22．5％；在漏诊的息肉中，〈5mm、5～9mm和≥10mm息肉分别占80．2％、18．3％和1．6％，各项间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）；山田Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ型息肉分别占87．3％、8．7％、3．2％和0．8％，各项间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）；直肠、乙状结肠、降结肠、横结肠、肝曲、升结肠和盲肠分别占11．1％、27．0％、12．7％、19．1％、10．3％、15．1％和4．8％，各项间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）；漏诊的晚期腺瘤在漏诊的腺瘤性息肉中占14．8％；漏诊息肉数与基础息肉数间相关分析显示有显著的相关性（r=0．674，P〈0．01）。结论常规电子结肠镜检查中结肠息肉有较高的漏诊率，各段结肠间漏诊率不同，且漏诊息肉绝大多数为〈5mm的Ⅰ型息肉。患者罹患息肉越多，漏诊越多。     

老年人大肠息肉无痛结肠镜切除术结肠镜结果分析

目的探讨无痛结肠镜下老年人大肠息肉切除术后病理及镜下特点。方法回顾性分析117例老年人大肠息肉的临床资料、内镜和病理特点,分析老年患者息肉的病理学、内镜特点（分布、大小、形态）及癌变情况,并与同期中青年患者进行比较。结果所有人群的息肉均好发于左半结肠（直肠、乙状结肠、降结肠）;老年患者息肉检出率高于中青年患者（35.67%vs 9.50%）（P〈0.01）;老年人息肉以腺瘤性息肉最为多见（60.71%）,息肉癌变率高（4.29%）,均高于中青年组（P〈0.05）;老年组直径≥1 cm的息肉和分叶状息肉也多于中青年组（P〈0.05）。结论肿瘤大小、病理类型、发生部位和年龄为腺瘤发生不典型增生的4个最重要的风险因子,老年大肠息肉患者具有以上危险因素。对老年人大肠息肉应该遵循＂见瘤即切＂的原则并密切随访。     

单中心结肠镜质量控制的回顾性横断面研究

目的　全面评价甘肃省人民医院内镜中心结肠镜检查质量,为评估我国目前消化内镜检查质量提供基线数据和理论依据。方法　依托甘肃省人民医院内镜中心数据库,采用单中心、回顾性、横断面研究方法,收集2021年1月1日—2021年12月31日在甘肃省人民医院消化内镜中心行结肠镜检查的全部患者资料,分析息肉检出率、腺瘤检出率、盲肠插管率、肠道准备充分率等质控指标,评价本中心结肠镜检查质量。结果　研究共纳入7 562例结肠镜检查患者,年龄（51.61±13.59）岁,其中男4 286例（56.7%）、女3 276例（43.3%）。门诊患者4 924例（65.1%）,住院患者2 638例（34.9%）。由专职内镜医师完成检查患者6 456例（85.4%）,由非专职医师（消化科或肛肠科医师）完成检查患者1 106例（14.6%）。总体腺瘤检出率、息肉检出率、盲肠插管率、肠道准备充分率分别为11.9%（900/7 562）、32.9%（2 488/7 562）、93.0%（7 030/7 562）、91.3%（6 906/7 562）。男性、高年龄段、住院患者以及由专职内镜医师完成检查患者的腺瘤检出率、息肉检出率更高,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论　甘肃省人民医院结肠镜检查的盲肠插管率、肠道准备充分率均能达到现有指南要求,但仍需进一步提高腺瘤检出率。高龄、男性是结肠镜筛查的重点人群。此外,应重视对内镜检查医师规范化培训,以进一步提高结肠镜检查质量。     

代谢综合征与大肠腺瘤的相关性研究

目的 研究代谢综合征(MS)与大肠腺瘤的相关性.方法 选取2009年6月～2012年6月所有接受结肠镜检查的患者,根据排除标准及肠镜检查结果诊断大肠腺瘤组455例,同时选取同期年龄匹配,肠镜结果未见异常的体检者455例为对照组.所有研究对象均检查空腹血糖、血脂,并测量血压、腰围,记录肠镜下腺瘤分布部位、大小、病理结果.对大肠腺瘤组与对照组各临床参数进行比较,运用Logistic回归分析代谢综合征与大肠腺瘤的相关性.结果 (1)大肠腺瘤组代谢综合征患病率高于对照组(P＜0.01),代谢综合征及血糖异常是大肠腺瘤的独立危险因素;(2)代谢综合征病种数量在个体聚集越多,患大肠腺瘤可能性越大;(3)大肠腺瘤合并代谢综合征患者大肠腺瘤数目多为3个或以上,大小为5 ～9 mm,病理多呈进展性改变.结论 代谢综合征与大肠腺瘤密切相关,尽早对代谢综合征患者行结肠镜检查,有利于大肠腺瘤的防治.     

血脂及脂质过氧化与大肠腺瘤的相关性

目的探讨血脂及脂质过氧化与大肠腺瘤恶变的关系。方法病例来源于2007年5月～2008年3月在武汉大学人民医院进行结肠镜检查诊断为大肠腺瘤的98例患者，对照病例为全结肠镜检查未发现病变的40例患者，结肠镜检前取静脉血检测血脂及血浆脂质过氧化产物丙二醛（MDA）。结果大肠腺瘤组血浆胆固醇和MDA高于对照组，而血浆高密度脂蛋白胆同醇则低于对照组，差异有显著性（P〈0．05）；远侧大肠腺瘤组和绒毛状腺瘤组血浆胆同醇和MDA分别高于近侧大肠腺瘤组和混合＋管状腺瘤组，差异有显著性（P〈0．05）；大肠腺瘤组和对照组各组内男女间血脂和血浆MDA比较差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。结论血浆胆固醇和丙二醛水平增高及血浆高密度脂蛋白胆同醇水平降低是结肠腺瘤发生的潜在危险因素，而且血浆胆同醇和丙二醛异常与大肠腺瘤的发生部位组织成分存存相关性。     

窄带内镜、染色内镜与常规内镜对远端大肠ACF发现率的对比研究

目的比较常规内镜与窄带内镜（NBI）、染色内镜对远端大肠异常隐窝灶（aberrant cryptfoci,ACF）的发现率。方法选择2011年8月至12月就诊于江西省萍乡市人民医院准备接受结肠镜检查的患者670例,用随机数字表法将患者分为3组：其中常规内镜组228例、NBI组220例、染色内镜组222例。比较三种方法对远端大肠ACF检出率及各组间所用操作时间。结果在三组中,共发现155例ACF病例数。常规内镜、NBI组及染色内镜组发现ACF病例数分别为5例（2.19%）、25例（11.36%）,125例（56.31%）,三组组间比较有显著性统计学差异（P〈0.01）。但是与常规内镜相比,NBI组、染色内镜组操作时间有所延长。结论染色内镜能大幅提高远端大肠ACF发现率。NBI内镜较常规白光内镜能提高远端结肠ACF发现率,但比染色内镜低。常规白光内镜对远端结肠ACF发现率低。     

大肠锯齿状腺瘤的内镜表现和癌胚抗原表达

目的探讨大肠锯齿状腺瘤（SA）的内镜特征和癌胚抗原的表达情况。方法选择2005年6月-2008年7月在消化内镜室检出的SA患者27例（SA组）,另选择同期检出的进展期结直肠腺癌（ACC）患者共26例（ACC组）。结肠镜检查发现大肠息肉后用0．4％靛胭脂溶液进行喷洒染色并判断息肉的腺管开口,采用活检钳钳咬、高频电切除术、EMR等方法摘除息肉,对大肠癌等病灶则采用活检钳钳咬组织。上述标本进行病理组织学常规检查和腺体组织癌胚抗原（CEA）免疫组化染色。结果SA组锯齿状腺瘤47枚,其它类型息肉27枚。SA形态以隆起亚蒂型多见,2枚最大径≥10mm,45枚最大径在3～8mm。SA腺管开口较常见到Ⅱ型pit与ⅢL型pit的混合表现,Ⅱ型pit也占一定比例,好发部位均在左半结肠。SA的腺瘤性腺体CEA阳性表达明显强于其增生性腺体CEA阳性表达（P〈0．01）。结论SA是一种独特的大肠腺瘤类型,其瘤细胞已有较强合成CEA能力,具备一定的恶变潜能,临床医师应予以高度重视。     

The Miss Rate for Colorectal Adenoma Determined by Quality-Adjusted, Back-to-Back Colonoscopies

Background/Aims

Colonoscopy is considered to be the gold standard for detecting adenomatous polyps. Polyps are missed during colonoscopic examination at a rate that varies from 6% to 27%. The adenoma miss rate affects colonoscopic surveillance intervals and procedural quality. We aimed to assess the adenoma miss rate and the variables affecting the rate using same-day, quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies.

Methods

This prospective study was performed at a single institution and included 149 patients. Two consecutive same-day colonoscopies were performed by two experienced endoscopists. The adenoma miss rates and variables affecting the missed adenomas, including polyp characteristics and procedure times, were evaluated.

Results

The miss rates of polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas were 16.8%, 17%, and 5.4%, respectively. The smaller polyps and increased number of polyps detected during the first colonoscopy were more likely to be missed. A longer insertion time during the colonoscopy was correlated with an increased adenoma detection rate.

Conclusions

There was a significant miss rate in the detection of colonic adenomas even in quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies. The adenoma miss rate can be reduced with a sufficient observation time during colonoscopic insertion. The development of specific technological methods to reduce the adenoma miss rate is necessary.     

Correlation between Surrogate Quality Indicators for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Miss Rate in Qualified Colonoscopy,CORE Study: KASID Multicenter Study

Background/AimsThe adenoma detection rate (ADR) does not reflect the complete detection of every adenoma during colonoscopy; thus, many surrogate indicators have been suggested. This study investigated whether the ADR and surrogate quality indicators reflect the adenoma miss rate (AMR) when performing qualified colonoscopy.MethodsWe performed a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of asymptomatic examinees aged 50 to 75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by eight endoscopists. The ADR and surrogate quality indicators, including polyp detection rate, total number of adenomas per colonoscopy, additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and total number of adenomas per positive participant, were calculated for the prediction of AMR.ResultsA total of 371 back-to-back colonoscopies were performed. There was a significant difference in ADRs (range, 44% to 75.4%; p=0.024), polyp detection rates (range, 56% to 86.9%; p=0.008) and adenomas per positive participants (range, 1.19 to 2.30; p=0.038), and a tendency of a difference in adenomas per colonoscopy (range, 0.62 to 1.31; p=0.051) and ADR-Plus (range, 0.13 to 0.70; p=0.054) among the endoscopists. The overall AMR was 20.1%, and AMRs were not different (range, 13.9 to 28.6; p>0.05) among the endoscopists. No quality indicators were significantly correlated with AMR. The number of adenomas found during the first colonoscopy was an independent factor for increased AMR (odds ratio, 1.79; p<0.001).ConclusionsThe colonoscopy quality indicators were significantly different among high-ADR endoscopists, and none of the quality indicators reflected the AMR of good quality colonoscopy performances. The only factor influencing AMR was the number of adenomas detected during colonoscopy.     

Missed colonic adenomas in routine primary care endoscopy: a prospective tandem colonoscopy study

Colonoscopy is the gold standard in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Several lines of independent evidence, however, suggest that a significant number of small adenomas and also some advanced lesions are missed even by experienced endoscopists. With large-scale screening colonoscopy programmes installed, information on quality of colonoscopy in primary care is essential, but not available. Between July 2006 and December 2008, a total of 40 patients (23 men and 17 women, median age: 69 years) underwent a second colonoscopy within 42 days after the first endoscopy (median: 11 days), in all cases exclusively for clinical reasons. Index colonoscopy was performed by 14 endoscopists in 6 hospitals and 4 private practices. Data on all consecutive patients were collected prospectively. A total of 98 neoplastic lesions were identified in 34 patients at the index colonoscopy, an additional 53 adenomas were removed at the second colonoscopy, 33 of them smaller than 5 mm. 25 out of 53 missed adenomas were identified between the coecum and the right colonic flexure. 12 of the additional lesions were considered significant lesions (larger than 10 mm or tubulovillous adenoma), nine of these were located between the coecum and the right colonic flexure. In 24 patients repeat colonoscopy detected adenomas not described in the original report. In eight patients a total of 12 significant lesions were removed, nine of these were located between the coecum and the right colonic flexure. About one-third of adenomas were missed in 40 routine colonoscopies, most of them only small and therefore probably of little clinical significance. However, 12 significant lesions were missed in 8 patients. Adenomas in the right colon seem to be a particular problem.     

Retrospective analysis of missed advanced adenomas on surveillance colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE: Miss rates of large polyp/cancer during colonoscopy are reported from tertiary centers where experts do the colonoscopies. This information is important for determining surveillance intervals for repeat colonoscopy, patient safety, and malpractice issues. We evaluated retrospectively the miss rates of advanced adenomas in the setting of a GI fellowship training where most colonoscopies are done by closely supervised fellows. METHODS: We reviewed the 235 patients who had at least one repeat colonoscopy after initial polypectomy, between 1992 and 1999, at the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Advanced adenomas were defined as polyps 10 mm or greater in size with or without a villous component or high-grade dysplasia. Data of missed advanced adenomas on 122 patients who had complete colonoscopy with satisfactory preparation and the excluded patients are reported. RESULTS: Four advanced adenomas (one had intramucosal cancer) on second colonoscopy and two advanced adenomas on third colonoscopy were missed. The miss rate of advanced adenoma for 232 patients was 1.7%, and the miss rate for the 122 patients with complete colonoscopy and satisfactory colon preparation was 2.5% and 3.3% on second and third repeat colonoscopy, respectively. No cancer was missed. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows an advanced polyp miss rate that is comparable with other studies even in a fellowship training setting. Prospective studies with tandem surveillance colonoscopy are needed to confirm our findings.     

Risk factors associated with missed colorectal flat adenoma: A multicenter retrospective tandem colonoscopy study

AIM: To determine the miss rate for colorectal flat adenomas during colonoscopy and the risk factors. METHODS: Flat adenomas are frequently missed during colonoscopy. However, the risk factors that influence their miss rates are unclear. This was a multicenter, retrospective study in which patients diagnosed with colorectal adenomas at a diagnostic colonoscopy and followed within 3 mo by a second therapeutic colonoscopy were pooled out from the established database. The “per-patient” and “per-adenoma” adenoma miss rates (AMR) for overall adenomas and flat adenomas, and patient-, adenoma-, and procedure-related risk factors potentially associated with the “per-adenoma” AMR for flat adenomas were determined. RESULTS: Chromoscopy and high-definition colonoscopy were not taken under consideration in the study. Among 2093 patients with colorectal adenomas, 691 (33.0%) were diagnosed with flat adenomas, 514 with concomitant protruding adenomas and 177 without. The “per-patient” AMR for flat adenomas was 43.3% (299/691); the rates were 54.3% and 11.3%, respectively, for those with protruding adenomas and those without (OR = 9.320, 95%CI: 5.672-15.314, χ² = 99.084, P < 0.001). The “per-adenoma” AMR for flat adenomas was 44.3% (406/916). In multivariate analysis, older age, presence of concomitant protruding adenomas, poor bowel preparation, smaller adenoma size, location at the right colon, insufficient experience of the colonoscopist, and withdrawal time < 6 min were associated with an increased “per-adenoma” AMR for flat adenomas. The AMR for flat adenomas was moderately correlated with that for overall adenomas (r = 0.516, P < 0.0001). The AMR for flat adenomas during colonoscopy was high. CONCLUSION: Patient’s age, concomitant protruding adenomas, bowel preparation, size and location of adenomas, proficiency of the colonoscopist, and withdrawal time are factors affecting the “per-adenoma” AMR for flat adenomas.     

Findings on optical colonoscopy after positive CT colonography exam

BACKGROUND & AIMS:  The aim of this study is to evaluate the findings on optical colonoscopy (OC) after a positive CT colonography (CTC) exam and characterize the type of polyps seen on OC but not reported by CTC.
METHODS:  Over an 18-month period a total of 159 asymptomatic adults had polyps seen on computed tomography colonography examination and subsequently underwent planned therapeutic optical colonoscopy. The colonoscopists were aware of the findings on CT colonography prior to further evaluation of the colon. Characteristics of polyps and adenomas seen on subsequent optical colonoscopy but not seen or reported on CT colonography were examined.
RESULTS:  The adenoma miss rate for CT colonography overall was 18.9% (25/132) including 6.2% (4/65) for polyps >9 mm and 18.2% (8/44) for polyps 6–9 mm. Three of the adenomas >9 mm not seen on CTC were sessile, and two were found in patients with technically difficult CT colonography studies due to poor colonic distention. No adenomas with advanced pathology <6 mm were found on optical colonoscopy but not reported on CT colonography. False-positive CTC referral where no polyp was seen on colonoscopy was 5.0%.
CONCLUSIONS:  CT colonography has adenoma miss rates similar to miss rates historically found with optical colonoscopy, with most missed adenomas being <10 mm and sessile in shape.     

Effect of water exchange method on adenoma miss rate of patients undergoing selective polypectomy: A randomized controlled trial

BackgroundAdenomas may be missed in up to 40% of screening colonoscopies. Although the water exchange (WE) method can improve ADR, as shown in several RCTs, it remains uncertain whether it can increase the detection of missing adenomas compared with standard air-insufflated (AI) colonoscopy.MethodsPatients aged 18–80 years who underwent selective polypectomy were randomly allocated to the WE or AI group. The primary endpoint was the adenoma miss rate (AMR), defined as the number of patients with one or more additional adenomas during the polypectomy procedure divided by the total number of patients in each group.ResultsA total of 450 patients were enrolled, with 225 in each group. The overall AMRs were 45.8% (103/225) in the WE group and 35.6% (80/225) in the AI group (p = 0.035). More patients in the WE group had at least one missed adenoma in the proximal colon (38.2% vs 24.4%, p = 0.002). The adenoma-level miss rate was also higher in the WE group than in the AI group (35.1% vs 29.0%, p = 0.036). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in the WE group had more missed adenomas located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that substantial adenomas were missed in patients undergoing selective polypectomy. The WE method significantly improved the detection of missed adenomas, especially those located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes. (ClnicalTrials.gov number: NCT02880748)     

Colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy

The goal of surveillance examinations after polypectomy is to detect new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas, as well as preventing adenomas from becoming invasive or cancerous. The first colonoscopy surveillance program reported was the National Polyp Study from the United States in 1997, with an update in 2003. First screening colonoscopy and polypectomy have been shown to produce the greatest effects in reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps. However, a large number of adenomas are being discovered as a result of the increased use of colorectal cancer screening, particularly with the dramatic increase in screening colonoscopy and surveillance. Increased efficiency of surveillance colonoscopy practices is therefore needed to decrease the cost, risk, and overuse of medical resources. In developing surveillance programs, studying miss rates and incidences and performing separate evaluations are important, along with accurately assessing incidence. This is because the recurrence rate or apparent incidence after colonoscopic polypectomy includes the true incidence of new polyp formation plus the incidence of missed polyps from the initial colonoscopy. Many studies have indicated the number of adenomas on initial examination as the most significant predictor for missed adenoma and incidence of adenoma on surveillance colonoscopy. In Japan, many facets of colonoscopic examination differ from those in Western countries. Further studies are recommended to establish an appropriate and original Japanese colonoscopy surveillance program for use after polypectomy, based on guidelines from the United States.