Risk factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia and colorectal cancer detected at surveillance: a nationwide study in the modern era.
advanced colorectal neoplasia
bowel cancer screening programmes
colorectal cancer
histopathological risk factors
Journal
Histopathology
ISSN: 1365-2559
Titre abrégé: Histopathology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7704136
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jun 2024
11 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
10
04
2024
received:
13
02
2024
accepted:
25
05
2024
medline:
11
6
2024
pubmed:
11
6
2024
entrez:
11
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Recommendations for surveillance after colonoscopy are based on risk factors for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) and colorectal cancer (CRC). The value of these risk factors remains unclear in populations enriched by individuals with a positive faecal immunochemical test and were investigated in a modern setting. This population-based cohort study included all individuals in the Netherlands of ≥55 years old with a first adenoma diagnosis in 2015. A total of 22,471 patients were included. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank (Palga). Primary outcomes were metachronous AN and CRC. Patient and polyp characteristics were evaluated by multivariable Cox regression analyses. During follow-up, 2416 (10.8%) patients were diagnosed with AN, of which 557 (2.5% from the total population) were CRC. Adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-1.83), villous histology (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.59-2.28), size ≥10 mm (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.23), proximal location (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.23), two or more adenomas (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.41), and serrated polyps ≥10 mm (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42-1.97) were independent risk factors for metachronous AN. In contrast, only adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.92-3.24) were an independent risk factor for metachronous CRC. Risk factors for metachronous AN and CRC were identified for populations with access to a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programme. If only risk factors for metachronous CRC are considered, a reduction in criteria for surveillance seems reasonable.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021; 71; 209–249.
Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P et al. Long‐term colorectal‐cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013; 369; 1095–1105.
Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long‐term prevention of colorectal‐cancer deaths. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366; 687–696.
Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC et al. Recommendations for follow‐up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the us multi‐society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158; e1135.
Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM et al. Post‐polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (esge) guideline—update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52; 687–700.
Zorzi M, Fedeli U, Schievano E et al. Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2015; 64; 784–790.
Chiu HM, Jen GH, Wang YW et al. Long‐term effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test screening for proximal and distal colorectal cancers. Gut 2021; 70; 2321–2329.
Rutter MD, East J, Rees CJ et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/public health England post‐polypectomy and post‐colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines. Gut 2020; 69; 201–223.
Dutch Association of Gastroenterologists, Dutch Association of Pathologists. Dutch guideline for coloscopy surveillance. 2013. Updated May 2022. Available at: https://www.mdl.nl/files/richlijnen/Richtlijn_Coloscopie_Surveillance_definitief_2013.pdf.
Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Brenner A et al. Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18; 823–834.
Click B, Pinsky PF, Hickey T, Doroudi M, Schoen RE. Association of colonoscopy adenoma findings with long‐term colorectal cancer incidence. JAMA 2018; 319; 2021–2031.
Cubiella J, Carballo F, Portillo I et al. Incidence of advanced neoplasia during surveillance in high‐ and intermediate‐risk groups of the European colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Endoscopy 2016; 48; 995–1002.
He X, Hang D, Wu K et al. Long‐term risk of colorectal cancer after removal of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps. Gastroenterology 2020; 158; 852–861.e854.
Lee JK, Jensen CD, Levin TR et al. Long‐term risk of colorectal cancer and related death after adenoma removal in a large, community‐based population. Gastroenterology 2020; 158; 884–894.
Martinez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136; 832–841.
van Heijningen EMB, Lansdorp‐Vogelaar I, Kuipers EJ et al. Features of adenoma and colonoscopy associated with recurrent colorectal neoplasia based on a large community‐based study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144; 1410–1418.
Wieszczy P, Kaminski MF, Franczyk R et al. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after removal of adenomas during screening colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 2020; 158; 875–883.
Loberg M, Kalager M, Holme O, Hoff G, Adami HO, Bretthauer M. Long‐term colorectal‐cancer mortality after adenoma removal. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 371; 799–807.
Casparie M, Tiebosch ATMG, Burger G et al. Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for palga, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell. Oncol. 2007; 29; 19–24.
Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Vol. 3. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2010.
Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D et al. The 2019 who classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020; 76; 182–188.
PALGA: the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, Stichting Palga. National Palga protocol for colon biopsies‐TEM(1). 2019. Updated March 2024. Available at: https://www.palga.nl/media/uploads/pdf/5/8/589_colonbiopt‐tem‐1.pdf.
Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 1982; 69; 239–241.
Cross AJ, Robbins EC, Pack K et al. Long‐term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Gut 2020; 69; 1645–1658.
Kim HG, Cho YS, Cha JM et al. Risk of metachronous neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy in young patients with colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2018; 87; 666–673.
Kuijpers CCHJ, Sluijter CE, von der Thusen JH et al. Interlaboratory variability in the grading of dysplasia in a nationwide cohort of colorectal adenomas. Histopathology 2016; 69; 187–197.
Madani A, Kuijpers CCHJ, Sluijter CE et al. Decrease of variation in the grading of dysplasia in colorectal adenomas with a national e‐learning module. Histopathology 2019; 74; 925–932.
Quirke P, Risio M, Lambert R, von Karsa L, Vieth M. International Agency for Research on Cancer. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition—quality assurance in pathology in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44(Suppl 3); SE116–SE130.
Dutch Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Protocol for admission and auditing of histopathological laboratories. Updated November 2022. Available at: https://www.bevolkingsonderzoeknederland.nl/media/1776/protocol‐toelating‐en‐auditing‐pathologie‐102.pdf version 10.2 2022.
Bronzwaer MES, Depla ACTM, van Lelyveld N et al. Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2019; 89; 1–13.
Dutch Association of Gastroenterologists. Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA). 2017. Updated June 2022. Available at: https://dica.nl/drce/home.
Sakata S, Klein K, Stevenson ARL, Hewett DG. Measurement bias of polyp size at colonoscopy. Dis. Colon Rectum 2017; 60; 987–991.
Morales TG, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS, Fennerty MB, Aickin M. The difference in colon polyp size before and after removal. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1996; 43; 25–28.
Turner JK, Wright M, Morgan M, Williams GT, Dolwani S. A prospective study of the accuracy and concordance between in‐situ and postfixation measurements of colorectal polyp size and their potential impact upon surveillance. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013; 25; 562–567.
Chaptini L, Chaaya A, Depalma F, Hunter K, Peikin S, Laine L. Variation in polyp size estimation among endoscopists and impact on surveillance intervals. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2014; 80; 652–659.
Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. The cox proportional hazards model and its characteristics. In Survival analysis: a self‐learning text. 3rd ed. New York: Springer New York, 2012; 97–159.