Colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma incidence during post-polypectomy surveillance: a national cohort study in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

Abstract

Background Improved colonoscopy quality has led to debate about whether all post-polypectomy surveillance is justified. We evaluated surveillance within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) to determine the yield of surveillance and identify predictive factors for surveillance outcome.

Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing post-polypectomy surveillance between July 2006 and January 2017. BCSP records were linked to the National Cancer Registration Database to identify interval-type post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). Advanced adenoma and CRC at surveillance were documented. CRC incidence was compared with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Predictors of advanced adenomas at first surveillance (S1), and CRC during follow-up, were identified.

Results 44 151 individuals (23 078 intermediate risk; 21 073 high risk) underwent 64 544 surveillance episodes. Advanced adenoma and CRC yields were, respectively, 10.0 % and 0.5 % at S1, 8.5 % and 0.4 % at S2, and 10.8 % and 0.4 % at S3. S1 yield was lowest in those with one index adenoma ≥ 10 mm (advanced adenoma 6.1 %; CRC 0.3 %). The SIR was 0.76 (95 %CI 0.66–0.88), accounted for by the intermediate risk group (intermediate risk SIR 0.61, 95 %CI 0.49–0.75; high risk SIR 0.95, 95 %CI 0.79–1.15). Adenoma multiplicity, presence of a large nonpedunculated adenoma, and greater villous component were associated with advanced adenoma at S1. Older age and multiplicity were significantly associated with CRC risk.

Conclusion This large, national analysis found low levels of CRC in those undergoing surveillance and low advanced adenoma yield in most subgroups. Less intensive surveillance in some subgroups is warranted, and surveillance may be avoided in those with a single large adenoma.

^‡ Joint senior authors

Publication History

Received: 29 June 2022

Accepted after revision: 16 February 2023

Article published online:
25 April 2023

• References

• 1 Rutter MD, East J, Rees CJ. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines. Gut 2020; 69: 201-223
• 2 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT. et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
• 3 Radaelli F, Paggi S, Bortoli A. et al. Overutilization of post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in clinical practice: a prospective, multicentre study. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 748-753
• 4 Rutter MD, Brookes M, Lee TJ. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK endoscopic activity and cancer detection: a National Endoscopy Database Analysis. Gut 2021; 70: 537-543
• 5 Rutter MD, Bretthauer M, Hassan C. et al. Principles for evaluation of surveillance after removal of colorectal polyps: recommendations from the World Endoscopy Organization. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1529-1533
• 6 Cross AJ, Robbins EC, Pack K. et al. Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Gut 2020; 69: 1645-1658
• 7 Logan RF, Patnick J, Nickerson C. et al. Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 2012; 61: 1439-1446
• 8 Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ. et al. Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut 2010; 59: 666-689
• 9 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG. The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2002; 12: 1-9
• 10 Henson KE, Elliss-Brookes L, Coupland VH. et al. Data resource profile: National Cancer Registration Dataset in England. Int J Epidemiol 2020; 49: 16-h
• 11 NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. All data related to Cancer registration statistics, England: 2017. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancerregistrationstatisticsengland/2017/relateddata
• 12 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH. et al. Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 31: 210-217
• 13 Moss S, Mathews C, Day TJ. et al. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut 2017; 66: 1631-1644
• 14 Wong MC, Huang J, Huang JL. et al. Global prevalence of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 553-561
• 15 Hassan C, Rutter M, Repici A. En bloc resection for 10-20 mm polyps to reduce post colonoscopy cancer and surveillance. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2173-2175
• 16 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
• 17 Beaton D, Beintaris I, Rutter MD. Utilization and reproducibility of World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithms: retrospective analysis. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 270-277
• 18 Rees CJ, Thomas GibsonS, Rutter MD. et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016; 65: 1923-1929
• 19 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
• 20 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925
• 21 Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R. et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 81-89
• 22 Burr NE, Derbyshire E, Taylor J. et al. Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study. BMJ 2019; 367: l6090
• 23 Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation 2016; 133: 601-609
• 24 Jover R, Bretthauer M, Dekker E. et al. Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 571-578