Clinical Endoscopy

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (대한소화기내시경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Post-polypectomy surveillance: the present and the future

  • Masau Sekiguchi (Cancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Takahisa Matsuda (Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Toho University Omori Medical Center) ;
  • Kinichi Hotta (Division of Endoscopy, Shizuoka Cancer Center) ;
  • Yutaka Saito (Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital)
  • Received : 2022.03.14
  • Accepted : 2022.04.10
  • Published : 2022.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

An appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance program requires the effectiveness of reducing colorectal cancer and safety. In addition, the post-polypectomy surveillance program should consider the burden of limited medical resource capacity, cost-effectiveness, and patient adherence. In this sense, a risk-stratified surveillance program based on baseline colonoscopy results is ideal. Major international guidelines for post-polypectomy surveillance, such as those from the European Union and the United States, have recommended risk-stratified surveillance programs. Both guidelines have recently been updated to better differentiate between high- and low-risk individuals. In both updated guidelines, more individuals have been downgraded to lower-risk groups that require less frequent or no surveillance. Furthermore, increased attention has been paid to the surveillance of patients who undergo serrated polyp removal. Previous guidelines in Japan did not clearly outline the risk stratification in post-polypectomy surveillance. However, the new colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines presented by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society include a risk-stratified post-polectomy surveillance program. Further discussion and analysis of unresolved issues in this field, such as the optimal follow-up after the first surveillance, the upper age limit for surveillance, and the ideal method for improving adherence to surveillance guidelines, are warranted.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was partly supported by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (2021-A-18).

References

  1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366:687-696.
  2. Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Brenner A, et al. Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:823-834.
  3. Tran AH, Man Ngor EW, Wu BU. Surveillance colonoscopy in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:1675-1682.
  4. Sekiguchi M, Igarashi A, Sakamoto T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance using Japanese data. Dig Endosc 2019;31:40-50.
  5. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1872-1885.
  6. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012;143:844-857.
  7. Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC, et al. Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020;158:1131-1153.
  8. Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013;45:842-851.
  9. Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020;52:687-700.
  10. Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Kretschmann J, et al. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German screening colonoscopy program. Gastroenterology 2015;149:356-366.
  11. East JE, Atkin WS, Bateman AC, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut 2017;66:1181-1196.
  12. Shaukat A, Holub J, Greenwald D, et al. Variation over time and factors associated with detection rates of sessile serrated lesion across the united states: results form a national sample using the GIQuIC Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116:95-99.
  13. Click B, Pinsky PF, Hickey T, et al. Association of colonoscopy adenoma findings with long-term colorectal cancer incidence. JAMA 2018;319:2021-2031.
  14. He X, Hang D, Wu K, et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after removal of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps. Gastroenterology 2020;158:852-861.
  15. Lee JK, Jensen CD, Levin TR, et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer and related death after adenoma removal in a large, community-based population. Gastroenterology 2020;158:884-894.
  16. Wieszczy P, Kaminski MF, Franczyk R, et al. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after removal of adenomas during screening colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 2020;158:875-883.
  17. Sekiguchi M, Kakugawa Y, Matsumoto M, et al. Prevalence of serrated lesions, risk factors, and their association with synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic screened individuals. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:1938-1944.
  18. Foss FA, Milkins S, McGregor AH. Inter-observer variability in the histological assessment of colorectal polyps detected through the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Histopathology 2012;61:47-52.
  19. Matsuda T, Fujii T, Sano Y, et al. Randomised comparison of postpolypectomy surveillance intervals following a two-round baseline colonoscopy: the Japan Polyp Study Workgroup. Gut 2020;70:1469-1478.
  20. Tanaka S, Saitoh Y, Matsuda T, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps. J Gastroenterol 2015;50:252-260.
  21. Saito Y, Oka S, Kawamura T, et al. Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines. Dig Endosc 2021;33:486-519.
  22. Hotta K, Matsuda T, Tanaka K. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance in the real clinical practice: nationwide survey of 792 board certified institutions of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. Dig Endosc 2020;32:824.
  23. Sekiguchi M, Otake Y, Kakugawa Y, et al. Incidence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals with untreated diminutive colorectal adenomas diagnosed by magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:964-973.
  24. Djinbachian R, Dube AJ, Durand M, et al. Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019;51:673-683.
  25. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:31-53.
  26. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017;49:378-397.
  27. Sekiguchi M, Kakugawa Y, Matsumoto M, et al. A scoring model for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia in a screened population of asymptomatic Japanese individuals. J Gastroenterol 2018;53:1109-1119.
  28. Kamba S, Tamai N, Saitoh I, et al. Reducing adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy assisted by artificial intelligence: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol 2021;56:746-757.
  29. Bishay K, Causada-Calo N, Scaffidi MA, et al. Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:1030-1040.
  30. Saito Y, Kodashima S, Matsuda T, et al. Current status of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in Japan: the Japan Endoscopic Database Project. Dig Endosc 2022;34:144-152.