scholarly journals Colorectal Cancer Surveillance after Index Colonoscopy: Guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 224-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond Leddin ◽  
Robert Enns ◽  
Robert Hilsden ◽  
Carlo A Fallone ◽  
Linda Rabeneck ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care.METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines.RESULTS: The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonos-copy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonos-copy at an interval of five to 10 years.DISCUSSION: The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-485.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Gupta ◽  
David Lieberman ◽  
Joseph C. Anderson ◽  
Carol A. Burke ◽  
Jason A. Dominitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
pp. 844-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Lieberman ◽  
Douglas K. Rex ◽  
Sidney J. Winawer ◽  
Francis M. Giardiello ◽  
David A. Johnson ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parakkal Deepak ◽  
David H. Bruining

Since the advent of the first flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscope in 1967, lower gastrointestinal endoscopy equipment has technologically advanced and is used for a number of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. This review covers the definition of and indications for lower endoscopy; diagnostic and screening colonoscopy, bowel preparation for colonoscopy, special considerations for patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents; endocarditis prophylaxis; general technique; diagnostic and therapeutic techniques during colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, anoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon-assisted colonoscopy, and lower endoscopy training; and innovations on the horizon. Figures show room setup and patient positioning for colonoscopy; technique for insertion of a colonoscope and endoluminal view of rectum, descending colon, transverse colon, and cecum; pinch biopsy and hot biopsy forceps; snare polypectomy and endomucosal resection of a polyp using the lift and cut and suction cap techniques; Haggitt classification of tissue invasion in a pedunculated polyp; endoscopic clips and their application; self-expanding uncovered metal stents and their method of deployment; an anoscope; and rigid endorectal probes for endoscopic ultrasonography. Tables list indications for colonoscopy, recommendations for screening for colorectal cancer (average risk) from the US Preventive Services Task Force, recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force for surveillance after baseline colonoscopy in average-risk individuals, recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force for screening and surveillance in colorectal cancer (high risk), bowel preparation scales, agents for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy, and Haggitt classification of tumor invasiveness in an adenomatous polyp.   This review contains 10 highly rendered figures, 7 tables, and 60 references.


2016 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles J Kahi ◽  
Richard C Boland ◽  
Jason A Dominitz ◽  
Francis M Giardiello ◽  
David A Johnson ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (3) ◽  
pp. 758-768.e11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles J. Kahi ◽  
C. Richard Boland ◽  
Jason A. Dominitz ◽  
Francis M. Giardiello ◽  
David A. Johnson ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 46s-46s
Author(s):  
E.F.P. Peterse ◽  
R.G.S. Meester ◽  
R.L. Siegel ◽  
J.C. Chen ◽  
A. Dwyer ◽  
...  

Background: In 2016, the MISCAN-Colon model was used to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines, which recommend screening from ages 50 to 75 years for average risk individuals. However, these models did not take into account the increase in CRC incidence below the age of 50 years. Aim: In this study, we reevaluated the optimal age to start screening, age to end screening and screening interval in light of the increase in CRC incidence observed in young adults. Methods: We adjusted the simulated lifetime CRC incidence in the MISCAN-Colon model to reflect the observed increase in young onset incidence. In line with the strong birth cohort effect, the current generation of 40-year-olds was assumed to carry forward escalated disease risk as they age. Life-years gained (benefit), the number of colonoscopies (burden) and the ratios of incremental burden to benefit (efficiency ratio) were projected for different screening strategies. Strategies differed with respect to test modality, ages to start screening (40, 45, 50), ages to stop screening (75, 80, 85), and screening intervals (depending on screening modality). We then determined the model-recommended strategies in a similar way as we did for the USPSTF, using similar efficiency ratio thresholds to the previously accepted efficiency ratio of 39 incremental colonoscopies per life-year gained. Results: The life-years gained and the number of colonoscopies for each colonoscopy strategy are plotted in Fig 1. Because of the higher CRC incidence, model-predicted life-years gained from screening increased compared with our previous analyses for the USPSTF. Consequently, the balance of burden to benefit of screening improved, with colonoscopy screening every 10 years starting at age 45 years resulting in an efficiency ratio of 32 incremental colonoscopies per life-year gained. Conclusion: This decision-analytic modeling approach suggests that based on the increase in young-onset CRC incidence, screening initiation at age 45 years has a favorable balance between screening benefits and burden. Screening until age 75 years with colonoscopy every 10 years, fecal immunochemical testing annually, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and computed tomographic colonography every 5 years was recommended by the model as these strategies provided similar life-years gained at an acceptable screening burden.[Figure: see text]


2006 ◽  
Vol 130 (6) ◽  
pp. 1872-1885 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney J. Winawer ◽  
Ann G. Zauber ◽  
Robert H. Fletcher ◽  
Jonathon S. Stillman ◽  
Michael J. O’Brien ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document