A Survey for Post-polypectomy Surveillance.
- Author:
Sung Noh HONG
1
;
Dong Hoon YANG
;
Young Ho KIM
;
Seong Eun KIM
;
Sung Jae SHIN
;
Sung Pil HONG
;
Bo In LEE
;
Suck Ho LEE
;
Dong Il PARK
;
Hyun Soo KIM
;
Suk Kyun YANG
;
Hyo Jong KIM
;
Se Hyung KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Surveillance; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonic Polyps; Guideline; Surveys
- MeSH: Adenoma; Colonic Polyps; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Electronic Mail; Humans; Intestinal Diseases; Korea; Physicians, Primary Care; Polyps; Referral and Consultation; Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Intestinal Research 2011;9(2):118-128
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
- Abstract: BACKGROUND/AIMS: There is a paucity of information on postpolypectomy surveillance currently practiced in Korea. Thus, we investigated the present state of postpolypectomy surveillance in Korea using a web-based survey. METHODS: A multiple choice questionnaire was used to determine the preferred surveillance modality, the colonoscopic surveillance interval used in 11 case scenarios, and clinical factors influencing surveillance intervals. The form was sent via e-mail to members of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases and primary care physicians involved in a colonoscopy surveillance program. Of 425 colonoscopists contacted, 263 replied (response rate, 62%). Of the respondents, 94% were internists and 54% practiced in tertiary referral hospitals. RESULTS: All respondents chose colonoscopy as a preferred surveillance modality following polyp removal. Colonoscopy at 3 years was the most frequent answer after removal of 1 or 2 tubular adenoma(s) <1 cm in size, while 1 year was the most frequent answer after removal of an advanced adenoma or > or =3 adenomas, and 6 months was the most frequent choice after removal of adenoma with high-grade dysplasia or a sessile polyp > or =2 cm. The agreement rate for the time of first surveillance between preferred guideline recommendations and respondent answers was in the low range at 14-43%. CONCLUSIONS: A significant disagreement exists between current postpolypectomy surveillance practices of Korean colonoscopists and preferred guideline recommendations. This discrepancy may be due to the fact that the guidelines do not reflect recent studies and the specific medical environment in Korea. Thus, there is a need to develop new evidence-based Korean guidelines for postpolypectomy surveillance.
