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 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Risks, costs, and compliance limit colorectal adenoma surveillance: lessons from a randomised trial
Gut, 2001
In the USA and many other countries, endoscopic surveillance of colorectal adenoma patients is now widely practised. However, the optimal frequency and mode of such surveillance are not yet established. The aim of this trial was to compare surveillance at one, two, or five year intervals using either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Analysis of a randomised trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy over one, two, or five years after stratification for "high" or "low" risk of recurrent adenomas. The trial started in 1984. A total of 776 patients were stratified into "high" (n=307) and "low" (n=469) recurrence risk groups and randomised to flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at varying intervals. Only 81 recurrent adenomas (30/81 were >1 cm in diameter) were detected in the 2307 person years of follow up within the surveillance study. Adenoma recurrence was significantly higher in the high risk group (relative rate 1.82; 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.9) but recurrence rates per 1000 person years were low and not significantly different in those surveyed by colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy. Loss to follow up was greatest in those having an annual examination compared with two or five yearly surveillance examinations. Despite surveillance, invasive cancer developed in four patients compared with an expected value of 9.12 for the general population in England (p=0.10); of these four patients who developed cancers, only one was detected by surveillance examination. Adenoma recurrence rates were much lower than expected in both high and low risk groups. This suggests that endoscopic surveillance should be targeted at high risk groups. A surveillance interval of five years was as effective as shorter intervals in terms of cancer prevention, and was associated with similar compliance to two yearly examinations.
Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study
The Lancet. Oncology, 2017
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. 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 pr...
Gastroenterology, 2010
Guidelines recommend that patients with colon adenomas undergo periodic surveillance colonoscopy. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these recommendations. We developed a Markov model to study various surveillance strategies from the perspective of a long-term payer. We modeled a cohort of 50-year-old patients with newly diagnosed adenomas, following them until death. Thirty percent of the population was assumed to be at high risk for colorectal cancer. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. Performing colonoscopies every 3 years in high-risk patients and every 10 years in low-risk patients (3/10 strategy) was more costly but also more effective than no surveillance, with an ICER of 5,743perQALYgained.Comparedwiththis3/10strategy,a3/5strategywasconsiderablymorecostlybutonlymarginallymoreeffective,withanICERof5,743 per QALY gained. Compared with this 3/10 strategy, a 3/5 strategy was considerably more costly but only marginally more effective, with an ICER of 5,743perQALYgained.Comparedwiththis3/10strategy,a3/5strategywasconsiderablymorecostlybutonlymarginallymoreeffective,withanICERof296,266 per QALY. A 3/3 strategy was more costly and less effective than a 3/5 strategy (dominated). Results were most sensitive to the annual probability of advanced adenoma formation and the relative risk (RR) of advanced adenoma formation in high-risk versus low-risk patients. Assuming that the probability of advanced adenoma formation was 1.3% per year (base: 0.5%), the ICER of the 3/5 strategy was <$50,000 per QALY gained if the RR of advanced adenoma formation was <2.4 (base: 3.9). Surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective for patients who are at high risk for developing colorectal cancer. Aggressive surveillance can be expensive or even harmful; efforts should be made to improve risk models for colonic neoplasia.
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2015
There is limited information about the interplay between multiple risk factors contributing to the risk of advanced neoplasia. We determined the actual risk for advanced neoplasia in relation to lapsed time between colonoscopies in people enrolled in a structured surveillance program. This risk information can be used to guide the selection of optimal surveillance intervals.
Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England
Gut, 2007
To estimate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and resource impact of faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) screening options for colorectal cancer to inform the Department of Health's policy on bowel cancer screening in England. Methods: We developed a state transition model to simulate the life experience of a cohort of individuals without polyps or cancer through to the development of adenomatous polyps and malignant carcinoma and subsequent death in the general population of England. The costs, effects and resource impact of five screening options were evaluated: (a) FOBT for individuals aged 50-69 (biennial screening); (b) FOBT for individuals aged 60-69 (biennial screening); (c) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 55; (d) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 60; and (e) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 60, followed by FOBT for individuals aged 61-70 (biennial screening). Results: The model suggests that screening using FSIG with or without FOBT may be cost-saving and may produce additional benefits compared with a policy of no screening. The marginal cost-effectiveness of FOBT options compared to a policy of no screening is estimated to be below £3000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Conclusions: Screening using FOBT and/or FSIG is potentially a cost-effective strategy for the early detection of colorectal cancer. However, the practical feasibility of alternative screening programmes is inevitably limited by current pressures on endoscopy services.
Endoscopy, 2020
Background Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) following adenoma removal. Low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups are defined by baseline adenoma characteristics. We previously examined intermediate-risk patients from hospital data and identified a higher-risk subgroup who benefited from surveillance and a lower-risk subgroup who may not require surveillance. This study explored whether these findings apply in individuals undergoing CRC screening. Methods This retrospective study used data from the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST), English CRC screening pilot (ECP), and US Kaiser Permanente CRC prevention program (KPCP). Screening participants (50 – 74 years) classified as intermediate-risk at baseline colonoscopy were included. CRC data were available through 2006 (KPCP) or 2014 (UKFSST, ECP). Lower- and higher-risk subgroups were defined using our previously identified baseline risk factors: higher...
Gut, 2015
To determine adherence to recommended surveillance intervals in clinical practice. 2997 successive patients with a first adenoma diagnosis (57% male, mean age 59 years) from 10 hospitals, who underwent colonoscopy between 1998 and 2002, were identified via Pathologisch Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief: Dutch Pathology Registry. Their medical records were reviewed until 1 December 2008. Time to and findings at first surveillance colonoscopy were assessed. A surveillance colonoscopy occurring within ±3 months of a 1-year recommended interval and ±6 months of a recommended interval of 2 years or longer was considered appropriate. The analysis was stratified by period per change in guideline (before 2002: 2-3 years for patients with 1 adenoma, annually otherwise; in 2002: 6 years for 1-2 adenomas, 3 years otherwise). We also assessed differences in adenoma and colorectal cancer recurrence rates by surveillance timing. Surveillance was inappropriate in 76% and 89% of patients...
Digestive …, 2004
Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer mortality, and the incidence of colorectal cancer in Japan is increasing gradually. To reduce colorectal cancer mortality, a higher compliance for colorectal cancer screening and follow-up programs is needed. Consequently, it is necessary to establish firm recommendations based on strong evidence from postpolypectomy colonoscopic surveillance. The Japan Polyp Study (JPS) began in 2000, and its objective is to evaluate follow-up surveillance strategies in patients who have undergone two complete colonoscopies for the control of colorectal cancer, with the removal of all detected polyps by high-resolution chromoendoscopy, including the removal of flat or superficial depressed (0-IIc) lesions. The JPS is scheduled to continue until the year 2010, and future data will help to develop recommendations for surveillance guidelines for such patients.