Using New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to assess United States and European post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines

Abstract

Background Our goal was to compare the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) high risk groups in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia on first follow-up colonoscopy and long-term colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods We compared advanced metachronous neoplasia risk (serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm or with dysplasia, advanced adenomas [≥ 1 cm, villous, high grade dysplasia], CRC) on first surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high risk findings according to ESGE versus USMSTF guidelines. We also compared the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of both guidelines for metachronous neoplasia.

Results The risk for metachronous neoplasia in our sample (n = 20 458) was higher in the high risk USMSTF (3 year) (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3–14.9) and ESGE groups (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3–15.0) compared with the lowest risk USMSTF (5.1 %; 95 %CI 4.7–5.5; P < 0.001) and ESGE categories (6.3 %; 95 %CI 6.0–6.7; P < 0.001), respectively. Adding other groups such as USMSTF 5–10-year and 3–5-year groups to the 3-year category resulted in minimal change in the PPV and NPV for metachronous advanced neoplasia. High risk ESGE (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03, 95 %CI 1.97–4.65) and USMSTF (HR 3.07, 95 %CI 2.03–4.66) designations were associated with similar long-term CRC risk (CRC per 100 000 person-years: USMSTF 3-year group 3.54, 95 %CI 2.68–4.68; ESGE high risk group: 3.43, 95 %CI 2.57–4.59).

Conclusion Performance characteristics for the ESGE and USMSTF recommendations are similar in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia and long-term CRC. The addition of risk groups, such as the USMSTF 5–10-year and 3–5-year groups to the USMSTF 3-year category did not alter the PPV or NPV significantly.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 20. Mai 2022

Angenommen nach Revision: 31. Oktober 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
31. Oktober 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Januar 2023

• References

• 1 Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC. et al. Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 463-485
• 2 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 687-700
• 3 Ibanez-Sanz G, Sanz-Pamplona R, Garcia M. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: can we improve the diagnostic yield?. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 45: 474-487
• 4 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
• 5 Anderson JC, Robinson CM, Butterly LF. Increased risk of metachronous large serrated polyps in individuals with 5- to 9-mm proximal hyperplastic polyps: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 387-393
• 6 Liu L, Messer K, Baron JA. et al. A prognostic model for advanced colorectal neoplasia recurrence. Cancer Causes Control 2016; 27: 1175-1185
• 7 Anderson JC, Rex DK, Robinson C. et al. Association of small versus diminutive adenomas and the risk for metachronous advanced adenomas: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 495-501
• 8 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, van Leerdam ME. et al. Systematic literature review and pooled analyses of risk factors for finding adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 560-572
• 9 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
• 10 Wieszczy P, Kaminski MF, Franczyk R. et al. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after removal of adenomas during screening colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 875-883
• 11 Lasisi F, Mouchli A, Riddell R. et al. Agreement in interpreting villous elements and dysplasia in adenomas less than one centimetre in size. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 1049-1055
• 12 Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Brenner A. et al. Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 823-834
• 13 Vleugels JLA, Hassan C, Senore C. et al. Diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced colon neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 623-634
• 14 Rice K, Gressard L, DeGroff A. et al. Increasing colonoscopy screening in disparate populations: results from an evaluation of patient navigation in the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program. Cancer 2017; 123: 3356-3366
• 15 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