Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials

Background: Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies after polyp removal depending on the number and characteristics of polyps, but there is a lack of evidence supporting the recommendations. This report outlines the rationale and design of two randomized trials and one observational study investigating evidence-based surveillance strategies following polyp removal.

Study design and endpoints: The EPoS studies started to recruit patients in April 2015. EPoS study I randomizes 13 746 patients with low-risk adenomas (1 – 2 tubular adenomas size < 10 mm, low-grade dysplasia) to surveillance after 5 and 10 years, or 10 years only. EPoS study II randomizes 13 704 patients with high-risk adenomas (3 – 10 adenomas or adenoma ≥ 10 mm in diameter, or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or > 25 % villous features) to surveillance after 3, 5, and 10 years, or 5 and 10 years only. EPoS study III offers surveillance after 5 and 10 years to patients with serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm in diameter at any location, or serrated polyps ≥ 5 mm in diameter proximal to the splenic flexure. All polyps are removed before patients enter the trials. The primary end point is colorectal cancer incidence after 10 years. We assume a colorectal cancer risk of 1 % for patients in EPoS I, and 2 % for patients in EPoS II. Using a noninferiority hypothesis with an equivalence interval of 0.5 % for EPoS I and 0.7 % for EPoS II, the trials are 90 % powered to uncover differences larger than the equivalence intervals. For EPoS III, no power analyses have been performed.

Conclusions: The present trials aim to develop evidence-based strategies for polyp surveillance, thereby maximizing effectiveness and minimizing resources.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02319928).

^* These authors contributed equally to this work.

• References

• 1 International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Health Organization. GLOBOCAN Database. 2008 Available at: http://globocan.iarc.fr/
• 2 Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 525-532
• 3 IJspeert JE, Vermeulen L, Meijer GA et al. Serrated neoplasia-role in colorectal carcinogenesis and clinical implications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 12: 401-409
• 4 Bretthauer M. Evidence for colorectal cancer screening. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 417-425
• 5 Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Colonoscopy as a triage screening test. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 759-760
• 6 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Rickert A et al. Risk of colorectal cancer after detection and removal of adenomas at colonoscopy: population-based case control study. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2969-2976
• 7 Cottet V, Jooste V, Fournel I et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study. Gut 2012; 61: 1180-1186
• 8 Løberg M, Kalager M, Holme Ø et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer death after adenoma removal. N Engl J Med 2014; 37: 799-807
• 9 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44: E151-E163
• 10 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. 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
• 11 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
• 12 Moynihan R, Glasziou P, Woloshin S et al. Winding back the harms of too much medicine. BMJ 2013; 346: f1271
• 13 Lieberman DA, Holub J, Eisen G et al. Utilization of colonoscopy in the United States: results from a national consortium. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 875-883
• 14 Jover R. Surveillance after colonic neoplasia: to die of success. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 511-512
• 15 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ 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: 901-906
• 16 Kronborg O, Jørgensen OD, Fenger C et al. Three randomized long-term surveillance trials in patients with sporadic colorectal adenomas. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 737-743
• 17 Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH et al. (eds) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. 4th. edn. Lyon: IARC; 2010
• 18 Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1315-1329
• 19 Zelen M. The randomisation and stratification of patients to clinical trials. J Chron Dis 1974; 27: 365-367
• 20 Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. Randomized trials analyzed like observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159: 560-562
• 21 Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S. Beyond the intention to treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 48-55
• 22 Holme Ø, Løberg M, Kalager M et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 312: 606-615
• 23 Toh S, Hernández-Díaz S, Logan R et al. Estimating absolute risks in the presence of nonadherence: an application to a follow-up study with baseline randomization. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 528-539
• 24 Toh S, Hernán MA. Causal inference from longitudinal studies with baseline randomization. Intern J Biostat 2008; 4: 22
• 25 Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicenter randomized trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 1624-1633
• 26 Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL. PLCO Project Team et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2345-2357
• 27 Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L. SCORE Working Group et al. 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
• 28 Martínez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 832-841
• 29 Levin B. Potential pitfalls in the use of surrogate endpoints in colorectal adenoma chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 697-699
• 30 Robertson DJ, Kaminski MF, Bretthauer M. Effectiveness, training and quality assurance of colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 2015; 64: 982-990
• 31 Bretthauer M, Kalager M, Adami HO. Do’s and don’ts in evaluation of endoscopic screening for gastrointestinal cancer. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 75-80
• 32 Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 1604-1608
• 33 van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuipers EJ et al. Features of adenoma and colonoscopy associated with recurrent colorectal neoplasia based on a large community-based study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 1410-1418