Colonoscopy with endoscopic resection of detected colonic adenomas interrupts the adenoma-carcinoma sequence and reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer and cancer-related mortality. In the past decade, there have been significant developments in instruments and techniques for endoscopic polypectomy. Guidelines have been formulated by various professional bodies in Europe, Japan and the United States, but some of the recommendations differ between the various bodies. An expert professional workgroup under the auspices of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, was set up to provide guidance on the endoscopic management of colonic polyps in Singapore. A total of 23 recommendations addressed the following issues: accurate description and diagnostic evaluation of detected polyps; techniques to reduce the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding and delayed perforation; the role of specific endoscopic resection techniques; the histopathological criteria for defining endoscopic cure; and the role of surveillance colonoscopy following curative resection.
Adenoma/surgery* ; Colonic Neoplasms/surgery* ; Colonic Polyps/surgery* ; Colonoscopy/methods* ; Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Humans ; Singapore ; United States

PURPOSE: Although there is a consensus about the need for surveillance colonoscopy after endoscopic resection, the interval remains controversial for large sessile colorectal polyps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome and the adequate surveillance colonoscopy interval required for sessile and flat colorectal polyps larger than 20 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 204 patients with large sessile and flat polyps who received endoscopic treatment from May 2005 to November 2011 in a tertiary referral center were included. RESULTS: The mean age was 65.1 years and 62.7% of the patients were male. The mean follow-up duration was 44.2 months and the median tumor size was 25 mm. One hundred and ten patients (53.9%) received a short interval surveillance colonoscopy (median interval of 6.3 months with range of 1-11 months) and 94 patients (46.1%) received a long interval surveillance colonoscopy (median interval of 13.6 months with range of 12-66 months). There were 14 patients (6.9%) who had local recurrence at the surveillance colonoscopy. Using multivariate regression analysis, a polyp size greater than 40 mm was shown to be independent risk factor for local recurrence. However, piecemeal resection and surveillance colonoscopy interval did not significantly influence local recurrence. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatment of large sessile colorectal polyps shows a favorable long-term outcome. Further prospective study is mandatory to define an adequate interval of surveillance colonoscopy.
Adult ; Aged ; Colonic Neoplasms/*diagnosis/pathology/surgery ; Colonic Polyps/*diagnosis/pathology/surgery ; *Colonoscopy ; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/*diagnosis ; Prospective Studies ; Time Factors ; Watchful Waiting/*methods

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colonoscopic polypectomy is highly efficient in preventing colorectal cancer, but polyps may not always be completely removed. Improved knowledge of the risk factors for incomplete polyp resection after polypectomy may decrease the cancer risk and additional costs. The aim of this study was to investigate the conditions that can cause incomplete polyp resection (IPR) after colonoscopic polypectomy. METHODS: A total of 12,970 polyps that were removed by colonoscopic polypectomy were investigated. Among them, we identified 228 cases with a positive resection margin and 228 controls with a clear resection margin that were matched for age, gender, and polyp size. We investigated the location, morphology, and histological type of the polyps and evaluated the skills of the endoscopist and assisting nurse. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that the polyps, which were located in the proximal part of the colon and rectum, were at significant risk of IPR. Histologically, an advanced polyp and an inexperienced assistant were also independent risk factors for IPR. CONCLUSIONS: Polypectomy should be performed more carefully for polyps suspected to be cancerous and polyps located in the proximal part of the colon or rectum. A systematic training program for inexperienced assistants may be needed to decrease the risk of IPR.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Clinical Competence ; Colon/pathology/surgery ; Colonic Polyps/pathology/*surgery ; *Colonoscopy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Treatment Failure

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colorectal adenomas that are > or =10 mm have villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or that are associated with > or =3 adenomas are considered high-risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia. We evaluated the cumulative incidence of metachronous advanced neoplasia according to the total number of high-risk findings detected on baseline colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed in 862 patients who underwent removal of colorectal adenomas between 2005 and 2009. At least one surveillance colonoscopy had been conducted at Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3-4 high-risk findings at 1 year were 0.7%, 1.3%, 2.8%, and 8.0%; at 3 years, those were 5.9%, 11.9%, 15.5%, and 24.7%; and at 5 years, those were 8.5%, 18.7%, 26.3%, and 37.2%, respectively. In a multivariate model, the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was significantly higher for the multiple high-risk findings group when compared with the 0 high-risk findings group (1 high-risk (+): hazard ratio, 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.00-3.44]; 2 high-risk (+): 1.84 [0.88-3.84]; and 3-4 high-risk (+): 3.29 [1.54-7.01]; ptrend=0.020). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of overlapping multiple high-risk findings was associated with an increased risk of advanced neoplasia during surveillance.
Adenoma/epidemiology/*etiology/pathology ; Aged ; Colonic Polyps/complications/surgery ; *Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology/*etiology/pathology ; Early Detection of Cancer/methods ; Female ; Humans ; Incidence ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Grading ; Neoplasms, Second Primary/epidemiology/*etiology/pathology ; Population Surveillance/methods ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Republic of Korea/epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Time Factors ; Tumor Burden

PURPOSE: Colonoscopic polypectomy and surveillance are important to prevent colorectal cancer and identify additional relative risk factors for adequate surveillance. In this study, we evaluated risk factors related to recurrent high-risk polyps during the surveillance of patients with high-risk polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 434 patients who had high-risk polyps (adenoma > or =10 mm, > or =3 adenomas, villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia) on the baseline colonoscopy and underwent at least one surveillance colonoscopy from 2005 to 2011 at Severance Hospital. Data regarding patient characteristics, bowel preparation and polyp size, location, number, and pathological diagnosis were retrospectively collected from medical records. Patients with recurrent high-risk polyps were compared with patients with low-risk or no polyps during surveillance. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly male (77.4%), with a mean age of 61.0+/-8.6 years and mean follow-up of 1.5+/-0.8 years. High-risk polyps recurred during surveillance colonoscopy in 51 (11.8%) patients. Results of multivariate analysis showed that male gender, poor bowel preparation, and a larger number of adenomas were independent risk factors for recurrent high-risk polyps (p=0.047, 0.01, and <0.001, respectively). Compared with high-risk polyps found during initial colonoscopy, high-risk polyps on surveillance colonoscopy had higher proportions of small adenomas, low-risk pathology, and fewer adenomas overall, but there was no difference in location. CONCLUSION: Male patients and those with poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy or higher numbers of adenomas were more likely to experience recurrent high-risk polyps.
Adenomatous Polyps/pathology/*surgery ; Aged ; *Colectomy ; Colonic Neoplasms/*pathology ; Colonic Polyps/pathology/*surgery ; *Colonoscopy ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Multivariate Analysis ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/*diagnosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Early colon cancer can be effectively diagnosed and treated by colonoscopy, and surveillance colonoscopy is necessary to detect precursor lesions or new early colon cancer. We analyzed the surveillance results of patients with endoscopically resected early colon cancer to evaluate the detection rate of advanced neoplasia and its associated factors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study at Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, from May 2003 to December 2011. Patients who underwent endoscopic resection for early colon cancer, showed mucosal and submucosal invasion on histopathologic examination, and received surveillance colonoscopy at least once were enrolled in the current study. Patients who underwent operation and those who were lost during surveillance period were excluded. RESULTS: Among a total of 305 patients diagnosed with early colon cancer, 211 patients met our inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 15 (7.1%) advanced neoplasias were detected at first colonoscopy. One hundred ninety-eight patients (93.8%) underwent surveillance colonoscopy within one year and 14 (7.0%) advanced neoplasias were detected in this group of patients. When patients with and without advanced neoplasia at first surveillance colonoscopy performed within one year were compared, inadequate bowel preparation (OR, 18.237; 95% CI, 3.741-88.895; p<0.001) and three or more colon polyps (OR, 9.479; 95% CI, 1.103-81.452; p=0.040) were significant risk factors for detecting advanced neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the high detection rate of advanced neoplasia at first surveillance colonoscopy in patients with endoscopically resected early colon cancer, surveillance interval should be within one year, especially when the bowel preparation has been inadequate and three or more colon polyps have been detected.
Aged ; Colonic Polyps/pathology/surgery ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms/*diagnosis/surgery ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Intestinal Mucosa/pathology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Staging ; Odds Ratio ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors

Evaluating predictive factors for high-risk adenomas at the third colonoscopy based on two prior colonoscopies may help evaluate high-risk adenoma at the third colonoscopy. We analyzed clinical data of 131 patients at Severance Hospital from January 1997 to January 2011. All of them underwent two subsequent colonoscopies after removal of adenomas during an initial colonoscopy. Among 20 patients with high-risk adenoma at the first and second colonoscopies, 10 (50%) patients had high-risk adenoma at the third colonoscopy. Among the 67 patients who had high-risk adenoma only once at the first or second colonoscopy, 15 (22.4%) patients had high-risk adenoma at the third colonoscopy but among the 44 patients without high-risk adenoma at the first and second colonoscopies, only 1 (2.3%) patient had high-risk adenoma at the third colonoscopy (P < 0.001). A multivariate time dependent covariate Cox regression analysis confirmed that high-risk adenoma at the first and/or second colonoscopy (HR, 9.56; 95% CI, 2.37-38.54; P = 0.002) was independent predictor of high-risk adenoma at the third colonoscopy. Given these findings, data from two prior colonoscopies, not one prior examination, may help identify high-risk populations at the third colonoscopy who require careful colonoscopic surveillance.
Adenoma/*surgery ; Aged ; Colonic Neoplasms/*surgery ; Colonic Polyps/pathology/surgery ; *Colonoscopy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Risk Factors

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colonoscopic polypectomy is a valuable procedure for preventing colorectal cancer, but is not without complications. Delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy is a rare, but serious complication. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors of delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted in a single university hospital. Forty cases and 120 controls were included. Data collected included comorbidity, use of antiplatelet agents, size and number of resected polyps, histology and gross morphology of resected polyps, endoscopist's experience, resection method, use of sedation, and use of prophylactic hemostasis. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, size, histology and number of resected polyps, endoscopist's experience, resection method and use of prophylactic hemostasis were significant risk factors for delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy. In multivariate analysis, risk of delayed bleeding increased by 11.6% for every 1 mm increase in resected polyp diameter (OR, 1.116; 95% CI 1.041-1.198; p=0.002). Number of resected polyps (OR, 1.364; 95% CI, 1.113-1.671; p=0.003) and endoscopist's experience (OR, 6.301; 95% CI, 2.022-19.637; p=0.002) were significant risk factors for delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Size and numbers of resected polyps, and endoscopist's experience were independent risk factors for delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy. More caution would be necessary when removing polyps with these factors.
Adult ; Aged ; Case-Control Studies ; Colonic Diseases/*diagnosis/pathology ; Colonic Polyps/*surgery ; Colonoscopy/adverse effects ; Female ; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/*etiology ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Hemorrhage/etiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors

Post-polypectomy surveillance has become a major indication for colonoscopy as a result of increased use of screening colonoscopy in Korea. However, because the medical resource is limited, and the first screening colonoscopy produces the greatest effect on reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, there is a need to increase the efficiency of postpolypectomy surveillance. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was used to address all available evidences to delineate the predictors for advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy. Based on the results of review of the evidences, we elucidated the high risk findings of the index colonoscopy as follows: 1) 3 or more adenomas, 2) any adenoma larger than 10 mm, 3) any tubulovillous or villous adenoma, 4) any adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, and 5) any serrated polyps larger than 10 mm. In patients without any high-risk findings at the index colonoscopy, surveillance colonoscopy should be performed five years after index colonoscopy. In patients with one or more high risk findings, surveillance colonoscopy should be performed three years after polypectomy. However, the surveillance interval can be shortened considering the quality of the index colonoscopy, the completeness of polyp removal, the patient's general condition, and family and medical history. This practical guideline cannot totally take the place of clinical judgments made by practitioners and should be revised and supplemented in the future as new evidence becomes available.
Adenoma/*diagnosis/surgery ; Adenoma, Villous/diagnosis/surgery ; Colonic Polyps/pathology/*surgery ; *Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms/*diagnosis/surgery ; Databases, Factual ; Humans ; Republic of Korea ; Risk Factors ; Time Factors

There are indirect evidences to suggest that 80% of colorectal cancers (CRC) develop from adenomatous polyps and that, on average, it takes 10 years for a small polyp to transform into invasive CRC. In multiple cohort studies, colonoscopic polypectomy has been shown to significantly reduce the expected incidence of CRC by 76% to 90%. Colonoscopic polypectomy is performed frequently in primary, secondary and tertiary and medical centers in Korea. However, there are no evidence-based, procedural guidelines for the appropriate performance of this procedure, including the technical aspects. For the guideline presented here, Pubmed, Medline, and Cochrane Library literature searches were performed. When little or no data from well-designed prospective trials were available, an emphasis was placed on the results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Thus, these guidelines for colonoscopic polypectomy are based on a critical review of the available data as well as expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data become available. This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions for any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and the available courses of action.
Adenoma/diagnosis/*surgery ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use ; Aspirin/therapeutic use ; Colonic Polyps/pathology/*surgery ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis/*surgery ; Databases, Factual ; Epinephrine/therapeutic use ; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/prevention & control ; Humans ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Republic of Korea ; Surgical Instruments ; Thrombosis/drug therapy ; Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use