Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study

Wendy Atkin, Kate Wooldrage, Amy Brenner, Jessica Martin, Urvi Shah, Sajith Perera, Fiona Lucas, Jeremy P Brown, Ines Kralj-Hans, Paul Greliak, Kevin Pack, Jill Wood, Ann Thomson, Andrew Veitch, Stephen W Duffy, Amanda J Cross, Wendy Atkin, Kate Wooldrage, Amy Brenner, Jessica Martin, Urvi Shah, Sajith Perera, Fiona Lucas, Jeremy P Brown, Ines Kralj-Hans, Paul Greliak, Kevin Pack, Jill Wood, Ann Thomson, Andrew Veitch, Stephen W Duffy, Amanda J Cross

Abstract

Background: Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence.

Methods: We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649.

Findings: 253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6-11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31-0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06-1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29-0·84).

Interpretation: Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.

Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study profile *Not mutually exclusive.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative colorectal cancer incidence after baseline Cumulative colorectal cancer incidence with no surveillance (ie, censoring at first follow-up) for the whole cohort (A) and for the risk subgroups (B). Cumulative colorectal cancer incidence after one surveillance visit (ie, censoring at the second follow-up) for the whole cohort (C) and for the risk subgroups (D). 95% CIs are shown for each curve.

References

    1. GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;385:117–171.
    1. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1624–1633.
    1. Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the italian randomized controlled trial—SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1310–1322.
    1. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2345–2357.
    1. Holme Ø, Løberg M, Kalager M. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:606–615.
    1. Atkin WS, Saunders BP. Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut. 2002;51:V6–V9.
    1. NICE . Colorectal cancer prevention: colonoscopic surveillance in adults with ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease or adenomas (CG118) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; Manchester: 2011.
    1. Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition—colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy. 2012;44:SE151–SE163.
    1. 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;143:844–857.
    1. Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau J-M. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45:842–864.
    1. Noshirwani KC, van Stolk RU, Rybicki LA, Beck GJ. Adenoma size and number are predictive of adenoma recurrence: implications for surveillance colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:433–437.
    1. Bertario L, Russo A, Sala P. Predictors of metachronous colorectal neoplasms in sporadic adenoma patients. Int J Cancer. 2003;105:82–87.
    1. 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;64:614–626.
    1. Martínez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:832–841.
    1. Huang Y, Gong W, Su B, Zhi F, Liu S, Jiang B. Risk and cause of interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopic polypectomy. Digestion. 2012;86:148–154.
    1. Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut. 2014;63:949–956.
    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. Prevention of colorectal-cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981.
    1. Martinez ME, Thompson P, Messer K. One-year risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia: U.S. versus U.K. risk-stratification guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:856–864.
    1. Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal-cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:658–662.
    1. Cottet V, Jooste V, Fournel I, Bouvier A-M, Faivre J, Bonithon-Kopp C. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study. Gut. 2012;61:1180–1186.
    1. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, Donnelly MT, Williams JG, Swarbrick ET. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013;62:242–249.
    1. Lieberman D. Colon-polyp surveillance—do patients benefit? N Engl J Med. 2014;371:860–861.
    1. Public Health England . Acute hospitals catchment populations. 2011. (accessed Feb 14, 2017)
    1. ERPHO . Acute hospital catchment populations in 2009. Eastern Region Public Health Observatory; Cambridge: 2011.
    1. W Atkin, A Brenner, J Martin, et al., The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations. Health Technol Assess (in press)
    1. Rees CJ, Gibson ST, Rutter MD. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut. 2016;65:1923–1929.
    1. Jorgensen OD, Kronborg O, Fenger C, Rasmussen M. Influence of long-term colonoscopic surveillance on incidence of colorectal cancer and death from the disease in patients with precursors (adenomas) Acta Oncol. 2007;46:355–360.
    1. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Harford WV. Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1077–1085.
    1. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1899–1906.
    1. Wilson JA. Colon cancer screening in the elderly: when do we stop? Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2010;121:94.
    1. Office for National Statistics . Cancer registration statistics, England. 2007. (accessed Feb 13, 2017)
    1. Pinsky PF, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL. The yield of surveillance colonoscopy by adenoma history and time to examination. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:86–92.
    1. Bowles CJA, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein O. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut. 2004;53:277–283.
    1. Rajasekhar PT, Rutter MD, Bramble MG. Achieving high quality colonoscopy: using graphical representation to measure performance and reset standards. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1538–1545.
    1. Valori R. Quality improvements in endoscopy in England. Tech Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;14:63–72.
    1. Morris EJ, Rutter MD, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, Valori R. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut. 2015;64:1248–1256.
    1. Cirocco WC, Rusin LC. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:964–968.
    1. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Stukel TA, Rabeneck L. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2297–2303.
    1. Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:1797–1802.
    1. Chung YW, Han DS, Park KH. Patient factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol: a prospective study in Korea. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43:448–452.
    1. Chung SJ, Kim YS, Yang SY. 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;60:1537–1543.
    1. Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:501–506.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe