Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2022

01-02-2022 | Colonoscopy

Are the current colonoscopy recommendations for interval surveillance in patients with polyps enough? Machine learning-augmented propensity score cohort analysis of 1840 patients

Authors: Sarah Baker, Dominique J. Monlezun, Nicole Wieghard, Charles Whitlow, David Margolin

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for screening and surveillance of colorectal neoplasms, and is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC)-related mortality. The current interval surveillance recommendations in patients with previous adenomas lack sufficient evidence. The prevalence of subsequent adenomas, and especially high-risk adenomas, during surveillance is not well known.

Methods

The primary outcome of this study was to determine the prevalence of polyps upon surveillance colonoscopy in patients who have a history of adenomas on initial average-risk-screening colonoscopy, but then have a normal initial surveillance (second) colonoscopy between 2003 and 2017. This is the first known retrospective cohort study of adenoma detection rate (ADR) with sub-group analysis of patients with serial surveillance colonoscopies by abnormal and high-risk surveillance findings separately by prior abnormal colonoscopies and correct surveillance strategies based on the recent March 2020 updated guidelines. After ADR calculation, machine learning-augmented propensity score adjusted multivariable regression with augmented inverse-probability weighting propensity (AIPW) score analysis was used to assess the relationship between guideline adherence, as well as abnormal and high-risk surveillance findings.

Results

A total of 1840 patients with pathologically confirmed adenomas or cancer on an initial average-risk-screening (first) colonoscopy met study criteria. 837 (45.5%) had confirmed adenomas on second colonoscopy, and 1003 (54.5%) had normal findings. Of 837 patients with polyps on both first and second colonoscopy, 423 (50.5%) had adenomas on third colonoscopy. Of the 1003 patients without polyps on second colonoscopy, 406 (40.5%) had confirmed adenomas on third colonoscopy. Guideline adherence was low at 9.18%, though was associated in propensity score adjusted multivariable regression with increased odds of an abnormal third (but not high-risk) colonoscopy, with comparable AIPW results.

Conclusion

This 14-year study demonstrates the ADR to be > 40% on the third colonoscopy for patients with adenomas on initial screening colonoscopy, who then have a normal second colonoscopy. Through advanced machine learning and propensity score analysis, we showed that correct adherence is associated with higher odds of abnormal, but not high-risk abnormal 3rd colonoscopy, with evidence that high-risk surveillance findings are reduced by providers shortening the time between surveillance colonoscopies in contrast to the guidelines for those for whom there is presumed greater clinical suspicion of eventual cancer. Larger prospective trials are needed to guide optimal surveillance for these patients.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA et al (2017) Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67:177–193CrossRef Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA et al (2017) Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67:177–193CrossRef
3.
go back to reference U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2008) Screening for Colorectal Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 149:627–637 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2008) Screening for Colorectal Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 149:627–637
4.
go back to reference Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al (2012) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 143:844–857CrossRef Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al (2012) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 143:844–857CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-updated based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544–560CrossRef Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-updated based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544–560CrossRef
6.
go back to reference American Cancer Society/US Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer/American College of Radiology (ACS/USMSTF/ACR) (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the ACS, the USMSTF, and the ACR. CA Cancer J Clin 58(3):130–160 American Cancer Society/US Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer/American College of Radiology (ACS/USMSTF/ACR) (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the ACS, the USMSTF, and the ACR. CA Cancer J Clin 58(3):130–160
7.
go back to reference Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JG 2nd, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS (2015) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 81(1):31–53CrossRef Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JG 2nd, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS (2015) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 81(1):31–53CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ferlitsch M, Reinhart K, Pramhas S, Wiener C, Gal O, Bannert C, Hassler M, Kozbial K, Dunkler D, Trauner M, Weiss W (2011) Sex-specific prevalence of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancer in individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. JAMA 306(12):1352CrossRef Ferlitsch M, Reinhart K, Pramhas S, Wiener C, Gal O, Bannert C, Hassler M, Kozbial K, Dunkler D, Trauner M, Weiss W (2011) Sex-specific prevalence of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancer in individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. JAMA 306(12):1352CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, Zauber AG, de Boer J, Fireman BH, Schottinger JE, Quinn VP, Ghai NR, Levin TR, Quesenberry CP (2014) Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 70(14):1298–1306CrossRef Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, Zauber AG, de Boer J, Fireman BH, Schottinger JE, Quinn VP, Ghai NR, Levin TR, Quesenberry CP (2014) Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 70(14):1298–1306CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Dvorin E, Lamb MC, Monlezun DJ, Boese AC, Bazzano LA, Price-Haywood EG (2018) High frequency of systemic corticosteroid use for acute respiratory tract illnesses in ambulatory settings. JAMA Intern Med 178(6):852–854CrossRef Dvorin E, Lamb MC, Monlezun DJ, Boese AC, Bazzano LA, Price-Haywood EG (2018) High frequency of systemic corticosteroid use for acute respiratory tract illnesses in ambulatory settings. JAMA Intern Med 178(6):852–854CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Monlezun DJ, Dart L, Vanbeber A, Smith-Barbaro P et al (2018) Machine learning-augmented propensity score-adjusted multilevel mixed effects panel analysis of hands-on cooking and nutrition education versus traditional curriculum for medical students as preventive cardiology: multisite cohort study of 3,248 trainees over 5 years. BioMed Res Int 2018(2018):5051289PubMedPubMedCentral Monlezun DJ, Dart L, Vanbeber A, Smith-Barbaro P et al (2018) Machine learning-augmented propensity score-adjusted multilevel mixed effects panel analysis of hands-on cooking and nutrition education versus traditional curriculum for medical students as preventive cardiology: multisite cohort study of 3,248 trainees over 5 years. BioMed Res Int 2018(2018):5051289PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Price-Haywood E, Luo Q, Monlezun DJ (2018) Dose effect of patient-care team communication via secure portal messaging on glucose and blood pressure control. J Am Med Inform Assoc 25(6):702–708CrossRef Price-Haywood E, Luo Q, Monlezun DJ (2018) Dose effect of patient-care team communication via secure portal messaging on glucose and blood pressure control. J Am Med Inform Assoc 25(6):702–708CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Johnson KW, Torres Soto J, Glicksberg BS et al (2018) Artificial intelligence in cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 71:2668–2679CrossRef Johnson KW, Torres Soto J, Glicksberg BS et al (2018) Artificial intelligence in cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 71:2668–2679CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Chen JH, Asch SM (2017) Machine learning and prediction in medicine-beyond the peak of inflated expectations. N Engl J Med 376(26):2507–2509CrossRef Chen JH, Asch SM (2017) Machine learning and prediction in medicine-beyond the peak of inflated expectations. N Engl J Med 376(26):2507–2509CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Obermeyer Z, Emanuel EJ (2016) Predicting the future-big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N Engl J Med 375(13):1216–1219CrossRef Obermeyer Z, Emanuel EJ (2016) Predicting the future-big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N Engl J Med 375(13):1216–1219CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Glyn A, Quinn K (2010) An Introduction to the augmented inverse propensity weighted estimator. Polit Anal 18:36–56CrossRef Glyn A, Quinn K (2010) An Introduction to the augmented inverse propensity weighted estimator. Polit Anal 18:36–56CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Brookhart et al (2013) Propensity score methods for confounding control in non-experimental research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 6(5):604–611CrossRef Brookhart et al (2013) Propensity score methods for confounding control in non-experimental research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 6(5):604–611CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC et al (2020) Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 115(3):415–434CrossRef Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC et al (2020) Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 115(3):415–434CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Are the current colonoscopy recommendations for interval surveillance in patients with polyps enough? Machine learning-augmented propensity score cohort analysis of 1840 patients
Authors
Sarah Baker
Dominique J. Monlezun
Nicole Wieghard
Charles Whitlow
David Margolin
Publication date
01-02-2022
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08403-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2022 Go to the issue