Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
Published in: Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology 2/2019

01-06-2019 | Colonoscopy | Colon (JC Anderson, Section Editor)

Update in Surveillance Recommendations in Individuals With Conventional Adenomas

Authors: Rishabh Sachdev, MD, Rahul Sao, MD, John W. Birk, MD, Joseph C. Anderson, MD, Joel Levine, MD

Published in: Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of review

Conventional adenomas, which are precursors to almost 70% of colorectal carcinomas, are found in more than one-third of screening colonoscopies. Surveillance recommendations, based on adenoma size, histology, and number, have evolved over the years and are currently reflective of index adenoma categorization as either low-risk (LRA) or high-risk (HRA). In this review, recent guideline recommendations as well as primary data that have helped to shape these recommendations are presented.

Recent findings

Recent data have demonstrated that individuals with HRA on index exams may be at increased risk for CRC while those with LRA may have a minimal long-term risk for CRC, similar to those adults with normal index exams. Furthermore, the quality of the index exams is important for minimizing CRC risk.

Summary

While individuals with HRA may require close surveillance intervals of 3 years, those with LRA or normal exams may need longer such as 10-year follow-up.
Literature
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.PubMed
2.
Welch HG, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancer on the decline--why screening can’t explain it all. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1605–7.PubMed
3.
Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, Eheman C, Zauber AG, Anderson RN, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer. 2010;116:544–73.PubMed
4.
Rex DK, Hassan C, Bourke MJ. The colonoscopist’s guide to the vocabulary of colorectal neoplasia: histology, morphology, and management. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:253–63.PubMed
5.
Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Stegmaier C, Brenner G, Altenhofen L, Haug U. Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840 149 screening colonoscopies. Gut. 2007;56:1585–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
• Click B, Pinsky PF, Hickey T, Doroudi M, Schoen RE. Association of Colonoscopy Adenoma Findings With Long-term Colorectal Cancer Incidence. JAMA. 2018;319:2021–31 This analysis of data from participants in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian (PLCO) cancer randomized clinical trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy showed that individuals with advanced adenomas undergoing surveillance had an increased risk for colorectal cancer as compared with those with no adenoma on index exam. Individuals with low-risk adenomas had risk similar to that of those with no adenomas.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:1016–30.PubMed
8.
Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M, Italian Multicentre Study Group. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut. 2001;48:812–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1975;36:2251–70.PubMed
10.
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O’Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–81.PubMed
11.
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ, Ho MN, Gottlieb L, Sternberg SS, et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:901–6.PubMed
12.
Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:658–62.PubMed
13.
Martinez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA, et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:832–41.PubMed
14.
Cottet V, Jooste V, Fournel I, Bouvier AM, Faivre J, Bonithon-Kopp C. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study. Gut. 2012;61:1180–6.PubMed
15.
Loberg M, Kalager M, Holme O, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:799–807.PubMed
16.
Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Levin TR. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–57.PubMed
17.
Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Harford WV, Ahnen DJ, Provenzale D, Sontag SJ, et al. Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1077–85.PubMed
18.
Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Lin-Cooper C, Larkin GN, Rogge JD, Ransohoff DF. Five-year risk of colorectal neoplasia after negative screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1218–24.PubMed
19.
Brenner H, Haug U, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Altenhofen L, Hoffmeister M. Low risk of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas more than 10 years after negative colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:870–6.PubMed
20.
Ponugoti PL, Rex DK. Yield of a second screening colonoscopy 10 years after an initial negative examination in average-risk individuals. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:221–4.PubMed
21.
Laiyemo AO, Murphy G, Sansbury LB, Wang Z, Albert PS, Marcus PM, et al. Hyperplastic polyps and the risk of adenoma recurrence in the polyp prevention trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:192–7.PubMed
22.
Waye JD, Braunfeld S. Surveillance intervals after colonoscopic polypectomy. Endoscopy. 1982;14:79–81.PubMed
23.
Saini SD, Kim HM, Schoenfeld P. Incidence of advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy in patients with a personal history of colon adenomas: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:614–26.PubMed
24.
Laiyemo AO, Murphy G, Albert PS, Sansbury LB, Wang Z, Cross AJ, et al. Postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance guidelines: predictive accuracy for advanced adenoma at 4 years. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:419–26.PubMed
25.
Martinez ME, Sampliner R, Marshall JR, et al. Adenoma characteristics as risk factors for recurrence of advanced adenomas. Gastroenterology. 2001;120:1077–83.PubMed
26.
Chung SJ, Kim YS, Yang SY, Song JH, Kim D, Park MJ, et al. Five-year risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia after initial colonoscopy according to the baseline risk stratification: a prospective study in 2452 asymptomatic Koreans. Gut. 2011;60:1537–43.PubMed
27.
Pinsky PF, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Church T, Yokochi LA, Doria–Rose VP, et al. The yield of surveillance colonoscopy by adenoma history and time to examination. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:86–92.PubMed
28.
Dube C, Yakubu M, McCurdy BR, et al. Risk of advanced adenoma, colorectal cancer, and colorectal cancer mortality in people with low-risk adenomas at baseline colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:1790–801.PubMed
29.
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, Stillman JS, O’Brien MJ, Levin B, 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;130:1872–85.PubMed
30.
Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ, Barry EL, Bostick RM, Burke CA, et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:1933–1943.e5.PubMed
31.
Leufkens AM, van Oijen MG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy. 2012;44:470–5.PubMed
32.
Lee J, Park SW, Kim YS, Lee KJ, Sung H, Song PH, et al. Risk factors of missed colorectal lesions after colonoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e7468.PubMedCentral
33.
Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Clark DW, Helper DJ, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:24–8.PubMed
34.
Bensen S, Mott LA, Dain B, Rothstein R, Baron J, for the Polyp Prevention Study Group. The colonoscopic miss rate and true one-year recurrence of colorectal neoplastic polyps. Polyp Prevention Study Group. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:194–9.PubMed
35.
Moon CM, Jung SA, Eun CS, Park JJ, Seo GS, Cha JM, et al. The effect of small or diminutive adenomas at baseline colonoscopy on the risk of developing metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia: KASID multicenter study. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50:847–52.PubMed
36.
Kim JY, Kim TJ, Baek S-Y, Ahn S, Kim ER, Hong SN, et al. Risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with multiple diminutive adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113:1855–61.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803.PubMed
38.
Pabby A, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Burt R, Kikendall JW, Lance P, et al. Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary Polyp Prevention Trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:385–91.PubMed
39.
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1296–308.PubMed
40.
Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:S16–28.PubMed
41.
Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM, Goodrich M, Weiss JE. Impact of fair bowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:463–70.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, Weiss JE, Goodrich M, Onega TL, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:417–26.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Butterly LF, Nadel MR, Anderson JC, Robinson CM, Weiss JE, Lieberman D, Shapiro JA. Impact of colonoscopy bowel preparation quality on follow-up interval recommendations for average-risk patients with normal screening colonoscopies: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​MCG.​0000000000001115​.
44.
Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–306.PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, Kraszewska E, et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105.PubMed
46.
Lee TJ, Rees CJ, Blanks RG, Moss SM, Nickerson C, Wright KC, et al. Colonoscopic factors associated with adenoma detection in a national colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopy. 2014;46:203–11.PubMed
47.
Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Brenner A, Martin J, Shah U, Perera S, et al. Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. The Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:823–34.PubMed
48.
Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Weiss JE, Robinson CM. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:1188–94.PubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Holme O, Bretthauer M, Eide TJ, et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with serrated polyps. Gut. 2015;64(6):929–36.PubMed
50.
• Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM, et al. Risk of metachronous high-risk adenomas and large serrated polyps in individuals with serrated polyps on index colonoscopy: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:117–127 e2 This analysis of data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry showed that the presence of index serrated polyps, especially sessile serrated polyps (SSP), can increase the risk for metachronous high-risk conventional adenomas (HRA), even greater than that for those with HRA alone. This paper also presented data that showed that large (> 1 cm) serrated polyps or SSPs predict metachronous large SPs but not HRA. PubMed
51.
• Anderson JC, Morris CB, Robertson DJ, Barry ELR, Figueiredo JC, Cruz-Correa M, et al. Can the sum of adenoma diameters (adenoma bulk) on index examination predict risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia? J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52:628–34 This retrospective analysis of data from a chemoprevention trial demonstrated that a new risk stratification approach to surveillance, which involved adding adenoma size, performed as well as the conventional paradigm. Furthermore, this model did not require information about histology such as villous elements or high-grade dysplasia, which can be subject to variation in interpretation.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Update in Surveillance Recommendations in Individuals With Conventional Adenomas
Authors
Rishabh Sachdev, MD
Rahul Sao, MD
John W. Birk, MD
Joseph C. Anderson, MD
Joel Levine, MD
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1092-8472
Electronic ISSN: 1534-309X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-019-00235-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology 2/2019 Go to the issue

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (G Lichtenstein, Section Editor)

Diet as Adjunctive Treatment for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Review and Update of the Latest Literature

Endoscopy (P Siersema, Section Editor)

Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Treatment of Bile Duct Stones

Liver (J Bajaj, Section Editor)

Albumin in Cirrhosis: More Than a Colloid

Liver (J Bajaj, Section Editor)

Contemporary Epidemiology of Cirrhosis

Liver (J Bajaj, Section Editor)

Infections in Cirrhosis

Endoscopy (P Siersema, Section Editor)

Endoscopic Bariatric Therapies: Intragastric Balloons, Tissue Apposition, and Aspiration Therapy
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits