Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Issue 10 (13th January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: van Heijningen, Else-Mariëtte B; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris; Steyerberg, Ewout W; Goede, S Lucas; Dekker, Evelien; Lesterhuis, Wilco; ter Borg, Frank; Vecht, Juda; Spoelstra, Pieter; Engels, Leopold; Bolwerk, Clemens J M; Timmer, Robin; Kleibeuker, Jan H; Koornstra, Jan J; de Koning, Harry J; Kuipers, Ernst J; van Ballegooijen, Marjolein
• Is Part Of: Gut. Volume 64:Issue 10(2015)
• Page Start: 1584
• Page End: 1592
• Publication Date: 2015-01-13
• Subjects: COLONOSCOPY -- ENDOSCOPIC POLYPECTOMY -- SURVEILLANCE -- COLORECTAL ADENOMAS; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306453
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0017-5749

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To determine adherence to recommended surveillance intervals in clinical practice. Design: 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. Results: Surveillance was inappropriate in 76% and 89% of patients diagnosed before 2002 and in 2002, respectively. Patients eligible under the pre-2002 guideline mainly received surveillance too late or were absent (57% of cases). For patients eligible under the 2002 guideline surveillance occurred mainly too early (48%). The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance was higher in patients with delayed surveillance compared with those with too early or appropriate timed surveillance (8% vs 4–5%, p<0.01). Conclusions: There is much room for improving surveillance practice. Less than 25% of patients with adenoma receive appropriate surveillance. Such practice seriously hampers the effectiveness and efficiency of surveillance, as too early surveillance poses a considerable burden on available resources while delayed surveillance is associated with an increased rate of advanced adenoma and especially colorectal cancer.