nach oben

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

Erschienen in:

01.08.2007 | Original Article

Follow-up after colorectal polypectomy: a benefit–risk analysis of German surveillance recommendations

verfasst von: F. Becker, G. Nusko, J. Welke, E. G. Hahn, U. Mansmann

Erschienen in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Ausgabe 8/2007

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

For colorectal screening patients a mean gain of life time was previously calculated of about 30–50 days. Different recommendations for recognising at-risk groups and defining surveillance intervals after an initial finding of colorectal adenomas have been published. However, no benefit–risk analysis regarding to specific long-term effects of follow-up has been reported to date.

Materials and methods

A Markov model based on time-dependent transition possibilities was developed to perform a benefit–risk analysis of the risk-related surveillance recommendations based on the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Polyps (ERCRP) in comparison with the recommendation of the German Society of Gastrointestinal Diseases and Nutrition (DGVS). The outcome was calculated for a 50-year-old patient with 30 years of follow-up after initial polypectomy. The data used in this model were taken from different sources, namely the ERCRP, the German Study Group of Colorectal Cancer, the German Statistical Yearbook, and from meta-analyses of studies reporting data on complications and sensitivity of colonoscopy.

Results

Patients under surveillance have a mean lifetime gain of 98 (ERCRP) and 110 (DGVS) days compared with those who do not come for surveillance. 84% and 94% of deaths from colorectal carcinoma (CRC) could be prevented if patients were followed up according to the recommendations of the ERCRP and the DGVS, respectively. Less colonoscopies are needed to prevent one death from CRC following the recommendations of the ERCRP (221) than those of the DGVS (283). The risk of death due to colonoscopy for patients during follow-up is about 0.05% lifetime risk. Sensitivity analysis showed the stability of the results under a wide range of reasonable variations of relevant parameters. In a pessimistic one-way sensitivity analysis regarding compliance, effectiveness was reduced to one third.

Conclusion

Surveillance using colonoscopy is an effective tool for preventing CRC after colorectal polypectomy, especially if a good compliance is assumed. The effectiveness is higher following the recommendations of the DGVS, but more colonoscopies are needed.

Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC (1975) The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 36:2251–2270PubMed

Morson BC (1974) Evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 34(Suppl 3):845–849PubMedCrossRef

Nusko G, Altendorf-Hoffmann A, Hermanek P, Ell C, Hahn EG (1996) Correlation of polypoid lesions in the distal colorectum and proximal colon in asymptomatic screening subjects. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 8:351–354PubMedCrossRef

Nusko G, Mansmann U, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Kessler H, Wittekind C, Hahn EG (1997) Differences between colorectal adenomas removed endoscopically and surgically. Hepato-Gastroenterology 44:1063–1068PubMed

Nusko G, Mansmann U, Partzsch U, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Groitl H, Wittekind C, Hahn EG (1997) Invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas: multivariate analysis of patient and adenoma characteristics. Endoscopy 29:626–631PubMed

Nusko G, Mansmann U, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Groitl H, Wittekind C, Hahn EG (1997) Risk of invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas assessed by size and site. Int J Colorectal Dis 12:267–271PubMedCrossRef

Nusko G, Sachse R, Mansmann U, Wittekind C, Hahn EG (1997) K-RAS-2 gene mutations as predictors of metachronous colorectal adenomas. Scand J Gastroenterol 32:1035–1041PubMed

Nusko G, Mansmann U, Wiest G, Brueckl W, Kirchner T, Hahn EG (2001) Right-sided shift found in metachronous colorectal adenomas. Endoscopy 33:574–579PubMedCrossRef

Jackmann R (1951) The adenoma-carcinoma sequence in cancer of the colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 93:327–330

10.

Atkin WS, Cuzick J, Northover JMA, Whynes DK (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by once-only sigmoidoscopy. Lancet 341:736–740PubMedCrossRef

11.

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O’Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS et al (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 329:1977–1981PubMedCrossRef

12.

Atkin WS, Saunders BP (2002) Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 51(Suppl 5):V6–V9PubMedCrossRef

13.

Nusko G, Mansmann U, Kirchner T, Hahn EG (2002) Risk related surveillance following colorectal polypectomy. Gut 51:424–428PubMedCrossRef

14.

Schmiegel WA, Pox C, Adler G, Fleig W, Fölsch U, Frühmorgen P et al (2004) S3-guidelines conference “colorectal carcinoma” 2004. Z Gastroenterol 42:1129–1177PubMedCrossRef

15.

Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544–560PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ransohoff DF, Lang CA, Kuo HS (1991) Colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy: considerations of cost-effectiveness. Ann Int Med 114:177–182PubMed

17.

Winawer SJ (1999) Appropriate intervals for surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc 49:S63–S66PubMedCrossRef

18.

Mansmann U (2000) A loss-effectiveness analysis of risk-adapted surveillance after colorectal polypectomy. Stud Health Technol Inform 77:395–398PubMed

19.

Matek W, Guggenmoos-Holzmann I, Demling L (1985) Follow-up of patients with colorectal adenomas. Endoscopy 17:175–181PubMed

20.

Hermanek P, Wiebelt H, Staimmer D, Riedl S (1995) Prognostic factors of rectum carcinoma—experience of the German multicentre study SGCRC. German Study Group Colo-Rectal Carcinoma. Tumori 81:60–64PubMed

21.

R Language. [http://www.rproject.org]

22.

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ, Ho MN, Gottlieb L, Sternberg SS et al (1993) Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 328:901–906PubMedCrossRef

23.

Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Kuntz KM (2000) Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA 284:1954–1961PubMedCrossRef

24.

Khandker RK, Dulski JD, Kilpatrick JB, Ellis RP, Mitchell JB, Baine WB (2000) A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16:799–810PubMedCrossRef

25.

Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, Libbe SD, Ilstrup DM, MacCarty RL (1987) Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology 93:1009–1013PubMed

26.

Eide TJ (1986) Risk of colorectal cancer in adenoma-bearing individuals within a defined population. Int J Cancer 38:173–176PubMedCrossRef

27.

Laufer I, Smith NC, Mullens JE (1976) The radiological demonstration of colorectal polyps undetected by endoscopy. Gastroenterology 70:167–170PubMed

28.

Thoeni RF, Menuck L (1977) Comparison of barium enema and colonoscopy in the detection of small colonic polyps. Radiology 124:631–635PubMed

29.

Williams AR, Balasooriya BA, Day DW (1982) Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool. Gut 23:835–842PubMed

30.

Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, McGee D, Garewal H (1990) Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of polyps missed by colonoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1769–1772PubMedCrossRef

31.

Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Clark DW, Helper DJ, Lehman GA, Mark DG (1997) Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 112:24–28PubMedCrossRef

32.

Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K, Takakuwa H, Tominaga M (1998) Efficacy of total colonoscopy with a transparent cap in comparison with colonoscopy without the cap. Endoscopy 30:444–447PubMed

33.

Bensen S, Mott LA, Dain B, Rothstein R, Baron J (1999) The colonoscopic miss rate and true one-year recurrence of colorectal neoplastic polyps. Polyp Prevention Study Group. Am J Gastroenterol 94:194–199PubMedCrossRef

34.

Winawer SJ, Stewart ET, Zauber AG, Bond JH, Ansel H, Waye JD, Hall D, Hamlin JA, Schapiro M, O’Brien MJ, Sternberg SS, Gottlieb LS (2000) A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group. N Engl J Med 342:1766–1772PubMedCrossRef

35.

Warn DE, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ (2002) Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med 21:1601–1623PubMedCrossRef

36.

Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, Woolf SH, Glick SN, Ganiats TG, Bond JH, Rosen L, Zapka JG, Olsen SJ, Giardiello FM, Sisk JE, Van Antwerp R, Brown-Davis C, Marciniak DA, Mayer RJ (1997) Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 112:594–642PubMedCrossRef

37.

Berci G, Panish JF, Schapiro M, Corlin R (1974) Complications of colonoscopy and polypectomy. Report of the Southern California Society for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastroenterology 67:584–585PubMed

38.

Wolff WI, Shinya H (1973) A new approach to colonic polyps. Ann Surg 178:367–378PubMedCrossRef

39.

Geenen JE, Schmitt MG Jr, Wu WC, Hogan WJ (1975) Major complications of coloscopy: bleeding and perforation. Am J Dig Dis 20:231–235PubMedCrossRef

40.

Silvis SE, Nebel O, Rogers G, Sugawa C, Mandelstam P (1976) Endoscopic complications. Results of the 1974 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey. JAMA 235:928–930PubMedCrossRef

41.

Smith LE (1976) Fiberoptic colonoscopy: complications of colonoscopy and polypectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 19:407–412PubMedCrossRef

42.

Frühmorgen P, Demling L (1979) Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in the federal republic of Germany. Results of an inquiry. Endoscopy 11:146–150PubMed

43.

Macrae FA, Tan KG, Williams CB (1983) Towards safer colonoscopy: a report on the complications of 5,000 diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopies. Gut 24:376–383PubMed

44.

Norfleet RG (1992) Colonoscopy and polypectomy in nonhospitalized patients. Gastrointest Endosc 28:15–16

45.

Reiertsen O, Skjötö J, Jacobsen CD, Rosseland AR (1987) Complications of fiberoptic gastrointestinal endoscopy—five years’ experience in a central hospital. Endoscopy 19:1–6PubMed

46.

DiPrima RE, Barkin JS, Blinder M, Goldberg RI, Phillips RS (1988) Age as a risk factor in colonoscopy: fact versus fiction. Am J Gastroenterol 83:123–125PubMed

47.

Nivatvongs S (1988) Complications in colonoscopic polypectomy: lessons to learn from an experience with 1,579 polyps. Am Surg 54:61–63PubMed

48.

Frühmorgen P, Pfähler A (1990) Komplikationen bei 39397 endoskopischen Untersuchungen—eine 7jährige prospektive Dokumentation über Art und Häufigkeit. Leber Magen Darm 1:20–32

49.

Luchette FA, Doerr RJ, Kelly K, Kulaylat M, Stephan RM, Hassett JM (1992) Colonoscopic impaction in left colon strictures resulting in right colon pneumatic perforation. Surg Endosc 6:273–276PubMedCrossRef

50.

Reed DN Jr, Collins JD, Wyatt WJ, Hull JE, Patton ML, Dahm SO, Dabideen HH, Hudson JC, Allen DB (1992) Can general surgeons perform colonoscopy safely? Am J Surg 163:257–259PubMedCrossRef

51.

Waye JD, Lewis BGS, Yessayan S (1992) Colonoscopy: a prospective report of complications. J Clin Gastroenterol 15:347–351PubMedCrossRef

52.

Van Gossum A, Cozzoli A, Adler M, Taton G, Cremer M (1992) Colonoscopic snare polypectomy: analysis of 1485 resections comparing two types of current. Gastrointest Endosc 38:472–475PubMed

53.

Jorgensen OD, Kronborg O, Fenger C (1993) The Funen adenoma follow-up study. Incidence and death from colorectal carcinoma in an adenoma surveillance program. Scand J Gastroenterol 28:869–874PubMed

54.

Rosen L, Bub DS, Reed JF III, Nastasee SA (1993) Hemorrhage following colonoscopic polypectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 36:1126–1131PubMedCrossRef

55.

Jentschura D, Raute M, Winter J, Henkel Th, Kraus M, Manegold BC (1994) Complications in endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Surg Endosc 8:672–676PubMedCrossRef

56.

Puchner R, Allinger S, Doblhofer F, Wallner M, Knoflach P (1996) Complications of diagnostic and interventional colonoscopy. Wien Klin Wochenschr 108:142–146PubMed

57.

Gibbs DH, Opelka FG, Beck DE, Hicks TC, Timmcke AE, Gathright JB Jr (1996) Postpolypectomy colonic hemorrhage. Dis Colon Rectum 39:806–810PubMedCrossRef

58.

Eckardt VF, Kanzler G, Schmitt T, Eckardt AJ, Bernhard G (1999) Complications and adverse effects of colonoscopy with selective sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 49:560–565PubMedCrossRef

59.

Sieg A, Hachmoeller-Eisenbach U, Eisenbach T (2001) Prospective evaluation of complications in outpatient GI endoscopy: a survey among German gastroenterologists. Gastrointest Endosc 53:620–627PubMedCrossRef

60.

Tran DQ, Rosen L, Kim R, Riether RD, Stasik JJ, Khubchandani IT (2001) Actual colonoscopy: what are the risks of perforation? Am Surg 67:845–847PubMed

61.

Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Johnston TK (2001) Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 55:307–314CrossRef

62.

Normand SL (1999) Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat Med 18:321–359PubMedCrossRef

63.

Farley DR, Bannon MP, Zietlow SP, Pemberton JH, Ilstrup DM, Larson DR (1997) Management of colonoscopic perforations. Mayo Clin Proc 72:729–733PubMedCrossRef

64.

Zubarik R, Fleischer DE, Mastropietro C, Lopez J, Carroll J, Benjamin S, Eisen G (1999) Prospective analysis of complications 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 50:322–328PubMedCrossRef

65.

Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA (2000) Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol 95:3418–3422PubMedCrossRef

66.

Sieg A, Theilmeier A (2006) Results of coloscopy screening in 2005—an internet-based documentation. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 131:379–383PubMedCrossRef

67.

Sonnenberg A, Delco F (2002) Cost-effectiveness of a single colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 162:163–168PubMedCrossRef

68.

Arguedas MR, Heudebert GR, Wilcox CM (2001) Surveillance colonoscopy or chemoprevention with COX-2 inhibitors in average-risk post-polypectomy patients: a decision analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 15:631–638PubMedCrossRef

69.

Byers T, Gorsky R (1992) Estimates of costs and effects of screening for colorectal cancer in the United States. Cancer 70:1288–1295PubMedCrossRef

70.

Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD et al (1997) Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 112:594–642PubMedCrossRef

71.

Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM (2000) Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 133:573–584PubMed

72.

Winawer S, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, Stewart ET et al (1992) The national polyp study. Design, methods, and characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed polyps. Cancer 70:1236–1245PubMedCrossRef

73.

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG (2002) The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 12:1–9, v.PubMedCrossRef

74.

Jorgensen OD, Kronborg O, Fenger C (1993) The Funen adenoma follow-up study. Characteristics of patients and initial adenomas in relation to severe dysplasia. Scand J Gastroenterol 28:239–243PubMed

75.

Fornasarig M, Valentini M, Poletti M, Carbone A, Bidoli E, Sozzi M et al (1998) Evaluation of the risk for metachronous colorectal neoplasms following intestinal polypectomy: a clinical, endoscopic and pathological study. Hepatogastroenterology 45:1565–1572PubMed

76.

Müller AD, Sonnenberg A (1995) Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 123:904–910PubMed

77.

Eddy DE, Nugent FW, Eddy JF, Coller J, Gilbertsen V, Gottlieb LS et al (1987) Screening for colorectal cancer in a high risk population. Gastroenterology 92:682–692PubMed

78.

Eickhoff A, Maar C, Birkner B, Riemann JF (2003) Dickdarmkrebs in Deutschland. Internist (Berl) 44:278–286

79.

Singh H, Turner D, Xue L, Targownik LE, Bernstein CN (2006) Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination. JAMA 295:2366–2373PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Follow-up after colorectal polypectomy: a benefit–risk analysis of German surveillance recommendations
verfasst von: F. Becker
G. Nusko
J. Welke
E. G. Hahn
U. Mansmann
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2007
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Ausgabe 8/2007
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-006-0252-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2007

Endosonographic and manometric evaluation of internal anal sphincter in patients with chronic anal fissure and its correlation with clinical outcome after topical glyceryl trinitrate therapy

Selective treatment of rectal cancer with single-stage coloanal or ultralow colorectal anastomosis does not adversely affect morbidity and mortality

Is there a role for neoadjuvant treatment with Gleevec for large rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors?

The expression of CD66a and possible roles in colorectal adenoma and adenocarcinoma

A novel MSH2 mutation in a Chinese family with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer

Anorectal necrosis induced by injection sclerotherapy for hemorrhoids

Update Chirurgie