Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polypectomy and Colorectal Cancer Resection

Am Fam Physician. 2008 Apr 1;77(7):995-1002.

  Related Editorial

  Patient information: See related handout on colonoscopy surveillance, written by Uma Jayaraman, MD, Editing Fellow.

This article describes a joint update of guidelines by the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer delineating evidence-based surveillance recommendations for patients after polypectomy and colorectal cancer resection. Although there are some qualifying conditions, the following general guidelines apply: after colonoscopic polypectomy, patients with hyperplastic polyps should be considered to have normal colonoscopies, and subsequent colonoscopy is recommended at 10 years. Patients with one or two small (less than 1 cm) tubular adenomas, including those with only low-grade dysplasia, should have their next colonoscopy in five to 10 years. Patients with three to 10 adenomas, any adenoma 1 cm or larger, or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia should have their next colonoscopy in three years. Following curative resection of colorectal cancer, patients should undergo a colonoscopy at one year, with subsequent follow-up intervals determined by the results of this examination. Adoption of these guidelines will have a dramatic impact on the quality of care provided to patients after a colorectal cancer diagnosis, will assist in shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening, and will ultimately decrease suffering and death related to colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and women, and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States.1 In 2007, an estimated 153,760 new cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed, and more than 52,000 Americans will die of this disease, accounting for 10 percent of all cancer deaths.1 New cases and deaths are equally distributed between men and women.1

Most colorectal cancers arise from a non-malignant lesion, the adenomatous polyp (i.e., adenoma), in a process that takes seven to 15 years.2 The rationale for colorectal cancer screening is that detection and removal of adenomas interrupts the progression from adenoma to carcinoma and, thus, prevents cancer. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates have decreased steadily for more than a decade; this change is attributed to the increase in colorectal cancer screening and adenoma removal that occurred during this period.1,3

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References

Surveillance colonoscopy and polypectomy should be performed in patients with a history of adenomas in order to reduce their risk of future colorectal cancer.

B

14,15, 17

Patients with typical hyperplastic polyps at screening colonoscopy should be considered to have normal colonoscopies and should have their next follow-up colonoscopy in 10 years.

C

13

Patients with one or two small (less than 1 cm) tubular adenomas, including those with only low-grade dysplasia, should have their next follow-up colonoscopy in five to 10 years.

B

16, 17

Patients with three to 10 adenomas, any adenoma 1 cm or larger, or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia should have their next colonoscopy in three years, providing that piecemeal removal has not been done and the adenomas are completely removed.

B

17

Patients undergoing curative resection for colon or rectal cancer should undergo a colonoscopy one year after the resection (or one year after the colonoscopy to clear the colon of synchronous disease).

A

30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 47

The joint USMSTF/ACS panel recommends against the routine use of fecal occult blood testing of post-polypectomy patients.

C

11


USMSTF/ACS = U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer/American Cancer Society.

A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, see page 896 or http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

View Table

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References

Surveillance colonoscopy and polypectomy should be performed in patients with a history of adenomas in order to reduce their risk of future colorectal cancer.

B

14,15, 17

Patients with typical hyperplastic polyps at screening colonoscopy should be considered to have normal colonoscopies and should have their next follow-up colonoscopy in 10 years.

C

13

Patients with one or two small (less than 1 cm) tubular adenomas, including those with only low-grade dysplasia, should have their next follow-up colonoscopy in five to 10 years.

B

16, 17

Patients with three to 10 adenomas, any adenoma 1 cm or larger, or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia should have their next colonoscopy in three years, providing that piecemeal removal has not been done and the adenomas are completely removed.

B

17

Patients undergoing curative resection for colon or rectal cancer should undergo a colonoscopy one year after the resection (or one year after the colonoscopy to clear the colon of synchronous disease).

A

30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 47

The joint USMSTF/ACS panel recommends against the routine use of fecal occult blood testing of post-polypectomy patients.

C

11


USMSTF/ACS = U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer/American Cancer Society.

A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, see page 896 or http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

The use of surveillance colonoscopy to detect new disease after initial screening has also increased significantly in the past decade.3 Surveillance recommendations have been published by a number of organizations.4,5 However, recent studies have documented a lack of familiarity with and adherence to these guidelines, including overuse of surveillance procedures by gastroenterologists and surgical endoscopists6 and excessive rates of referral by primary care physicians for surveillance testing that is not indicated.7

Overuse of colonoscopy has significant costs. In addition to the financial waste incurred by the health care system, overtesting exposes patients to unnecessary risks. Serious complications are estimated to occur in approximately one to five of every 1,000 colonoscopies.810 Additionally, overuse of surveillance colonoscopy may hinder timely screening and diagnostic examinations.3

In response to these concerns, the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF, a consortium representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American College of Physicians) recently collaborated on an updated consensus guideline on the use of surveillance colonoscopy.11,12 Separate recommendations were developed to address appropriate follow-up of post-polypectomy patients and patients who have undergone resection of colon or rectal cancer.

Recommendations for Post-Colorectal Polypectomy Surveillance

Table 111 summarizes the surveillance recommendations for postcolorectal polypectomy.

Table 1

Post-Colorectal Polypectomy Surveillance Recommendations

Risk group Surveillance recommendation

Patients with small colorectal hyperplastic polyps (these patients are considered to have normal colonoscopies)

Next follow-up colonoscopy in 10 years

An exception is patients with the hyperplastic polyposis syndrome because they are at increased risk for adenomas and colorectal cancer and must be identified for more intensive follow-up

Patients with one or two small (< 1 cm) tubular adenomas with only low-grade dysplasia

Next follow-up colonoscopy in five to 10 years

The precise timing within this interval should be based on other clinical factors (e.g., previous colonoscopy findings, family history, patient preferences, judgment of the physician)

Patients with three to 10 adenomas, any adenoma ≥ 1 cm, or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia

Next follow-up colonoscopy in three years, provided that piecemeal removal has not been done and the adenomas are completely removed

If the follow-up colonoscopy is normal or shows only one or two small (< 1 cm) tubular adenomas with low-grade dysplasia, the interval for the subsequent examination should be five years

Patients with more than 10 adenomas at one examination

Next follow-up colonoscopy at a shorter interval (three years or less) established by clinical judgment, and the physician should consider the possibility of an underlying familial syndrome

Patients with sessile adenomas that are removed piecemeal

Consider follow-up colonoscopy at two- to six-month intervals to verify complete removal

Once complete removal has been established, subsequent surveillance should be individualized, based on the endoscopist's judgment; completeness of removal should be based on endoscopic and pathologic assessments

Patients suspected of having hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer

More intensive surveillance than every 10 years is indicated when the family history indicates hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; recommendation for confirmed disease is colonoscopy every one to two years


Adapted with permission from Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):145.

Table 1   Post-Colorectal Polypectomy Surveillance Recommendations

View Table

Table 1

Post-Colorectal Polypectomy Surveillance Recommendations

Risk group Surveillance recommendation

Patients with small colorectal hyperplastic polyps (these patients are considered to have normal colonoscopies)

Next follow-up colonoscopy in 10 years

An exception is patients with the hyperplastic polyposis syndrome because they are at increased risk for adenomas and colorectal cancer and must be identified for more intensive follow-up

Patients with one or two small (< 1 cm) tubular adenomas with only low-grade dysplasia

Next follow-up colonoscopy in five to 10 years

The precise timing within this interval should be based on other clinical factors (e.g., previous colonoscopy findings, family history, patient preferences, judgment of the physician)

Patients with three to 10 adenomas, any adenoma ≥ 1 cm, or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia

Next follow-up colonoscopy in three years, provided that piecemeal removal has not been done and the adenomas are completely removed

If the follow-up colonoscopy is normal or shows only one or two small (< 1 cm) tubular adenomas with low-grade dysplasia, the interval for the subsequent examination should be five years

Patients with more than 10 adenomas at one examination

Next follow-up colonoscopy at a shorter interval (three years or less) established by clinical judgment, and the physician should consider the possibility of an underlying familial syndrome

Patients with sessile adenomas that are removed piecemeal

Consider follow-up colonoscopy at two- to six-month intervals to verify complete removal

Once complete removal has been established, subsequent surveillance should be individualized, based on the endoscopist's judgment; completeness of removal should be based on endoscopic and pathologic assessments

Patients suspected of having hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer

More intensive surveillance than every 10 years is indicated when the family history indicates hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; recommendation for confirmed disease is colonoscopy every one to two years


Adapted with permission from Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):145.

EVIDENCE AND RATIONALE

Most polyps fall into one of two broad categories—hyperplastic or adenomatous. Hyperplastic polyps are generally thought to have little or no risk of malignant transformation, with the exception of the hyperplastic polyposis syndrome.13 In contrast with the low risk associated with typical hyperplastic polyps, adenomatous polyps have a clear propensity for transition to cancer (although most do not become malignant). When transformation occurs, the progression from adenoma to cancer usually takes several years, and detection and removal of adenomas during this premalignant phase markedly decreases the incidence of colorectal cancer.1416 Patients in whom adenomas are detected have an increased risk of future adenomas and colorectal cancer, and the rate of future cancers can be substantially reduced by surveillance colonoscopy and polypectomy.14,15,17

The initial adenoma or cancer is referred to as the index lesion. Additional neoplastic growths found during the same evaluation are termed synchronous lesions, whereas those detected at subsequent assessment are labeled metachronous.

At the time of the initial polypectomy, patients can be stratified into lower- and higher-risk groups for the development of future neoplasia, and assigned to an appropriate follow-up schedule, reserving the highest intensity follow-up (i.e., the shortest interval or highest frequency) for those at highest risk. The joint USMSTF/ACS evidence review identified several factors that are associated with the development, number, and severity of future adenomas.12

Quality of the Baseline Colonoscopy. Even in expert settings, colonoscopy misses a small number of adenomas and cancers.1820 However, this miss rate is substantially increased when the quality of the examination has been compromised by one or more factors.21,22 The USMSTF has defined high-quality colonoscopy as a procedure in which there is little fecal residue, colonoscopy reaches the cecum, and there is a minimum withdrawal time from the cecum of six minutes.23 Studies evaluating colonoscopies that do not meet these criteria have found consistently higher miss rates for advanced lesions compared with colonoscopies that achieve these standards.21,22,24 In one study of colonoscopy in a community practice, colonoscopists with a mean withdrawal time of six minutes or more found nearly three times more neoplasia and more than twice as many advanced neoplasia compared with their colleagues with mean withdrawal times of less than six minutes.22

Incomplete Polyp Removal. Incomplete removal of large sessile adenomas from the colon and rectum is associated with an increased risk of future cancers in these sites.16 Evidence suggests that many cancers diagnosed soon after colonoscopy are related to this phenomenon.24,25

Adenoma Characteristics. Detection of future neoplasia has been associated with a variety of index lesion characteristics. These factors are outlined in Table 2.16

Table 2

Summary of Predictive Factors at Index Colorectal Polypectomy for the Development of Subsequent Advanced Adenomas

Factors associated with increased risk

Three or more adenomas

Adenoma ≥ 1 cm

Villous features or high-grade dysplasia

Factors associated with lower risk*

High-quality baseline examination

One or two adenomas < 1 cm

Adenomas removed completely

All lesions < 1 cm

No villous features or high-grade dysplasia


*— Based on at least one long-term study, the risk of a colorectal cancer diagnosis after polypectomy among persons with lower-risk features is similar to that in the average-risk population.

Information from reference 16.

Table 2   Summary of Predictive Factors at Index Colorectal Polypectomy for the Development of Subsequent Advanced Adenomas

View Table

Table 2

Summary of Predictive Factors at Index Colorectal Polypectomy for the Development of Subsequent Advanced Adenomas

Factors associated with increased risk

Three or more adenomas

Adenoma ≥ 1 cm

Villous features or high-grade dysplasia

Factors associated with lower risk*

High-quality baseline examination

One or two adenomas < 1 cm

Adenomas removed completely

All lesions < 1 cm

No villous features or high-grade dysplasia


*— Based on at least one long-term study, the risk of a colorectal cancer diagnosis after polypectomy among persons with lower-risk features is similar to that in the average-risk population.

Information from reference 16.

Patient Characteristics. Various patient-related features may affect the likelihood of metachronous neoplasia. Generally, a higher risk for colorectal cancer is associated with male sex, older age, and a personal or family history of polyps or cancer. Although there is some evidence supporting a role for each of these,14,17,26,27 the degree of risk conferred by these factors (alone or in combination) is unclear. Thus, in the current recommendations, stratification does not vary based on these features.

An important exception is the patient with a family history suggestive of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis, or other known genetic syndromes associated with colorectal cancer. Physicians should suspect the presence of one of these genetic syndromes in patients with multiple relatives with polyps or cancers, particularly if they were diagnosed before the age of 50 years. Such patients require special screening and surveillance, which may also include the use of genetic testing.5,28,29

SURVEILLANCE INTERVALS

Studies of post-polypectomy colonoscopy evaluated in the USMSTF/ACS evidence review were limited to five to six years' duration.17,27 Based on the available data, the joint panel projected that patients in the lower-risk group can safely wait five years, and possibly as long as 10 years, for a follow-up colonoscopy. However, the panel recognized that, in the absence of definitive long-term data, some patients and physicians will be uncomfortable with the longer surveillance interval. For this reason, the interval recommendations for this group are flexible.

Appropriate stratification based on the characteristics delineated in Table 2,16  coupled with adherence to the surveillance recommendations outlined in Table 1,11 allows patients at a higher risk of disease to receive more intensive surveillance and decreases or eliminates the overuse of scarce colonoscopy resources among the much larger low-risk group.

Recommendations for Post-Colorectal Cancer Resection Surveillance

Table 312 addresses the surveillance recommendations for patients with a post-colorectal cancer resection.

Table 3

Post-Colorectal Cancer Resection Surveillance Recommendations

Patients with colorectal cancer should undergo high-quality perioperative clearing

In patients with nonobstructing tumors, this can be done by preoperative colonoscopy

In patients with obstructing tumors, computed tomography colonography with intravenous contrast or double contrast barium enema can be used to detect neoplasms in the proximal colon

In these cases, a colonoscopy to clear the colon of synchronous disease should be considered three to six months after the resection if no unresectable metastases are found during surgery; alternatively, colonoscopy can be performed intraoperatively

Patients undergoing curative resection for colon or rectal cancer should undergo colonoscopy one year after the resection (or one year after the colonoscopy to clear the colon of synchronous disease); this colonoscopy should be performed in addition to perioperative colonoscopy for synchronous tumors

If the one-year colonoscopy is normal, the next colonoscopy should be performed in three years; if those results are normal, the next colonoscopy should be performed in five years

After the one-year colonoscopy, the intervals between subsequent examinations may be shortened if there is evidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer or if adenoma findings (i.e., histology, size, and number) warrant earlier colonoscopy

Periodic examination of the rectum to identify local recurrence, usually performed by rigid proctoscopy, flexible proctoscopy, or rectal endoscopic ultrasonography at three- to six-month intervals for the first two to three years, may be considered after low anterior resection of rectal cancer; these examinations are independent of the colonoscopic examinations described above for detection of metachronous disease


Adapted with permission from Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):161.

Table 3   Post-Colorectal Cancer Resection Surveillance Recommendations

View Table

Table 3

Post-Colorectal Cancer Resection Surveillance Recommendations

Patients with colorectal cancer should undergo high-quality perioperative clearing

In patients with nonobstructing tumors, this can be done by preoperative colonoscopy

In patients with obstructing tumors, computed tomography colonography with intravenous contrast or double contrast barium enema can be used to detect neoplasms in the proximal colon

In these cases, a colonoscopy to clear the colon of synchronous disease should be considered three to six months after the resection if no unresectable metastases are found during surgery; alternatively, colonoscopy can be performed intraoperatively

Patients undergoing curative resection for colon or rectal cancer should undergo colonoscopy one year after the resection (or one year after the colonoscopy to clear the colon of synchronous disease); this colonoscopy should be performed in addition to perioperative colonoscopy for synchronous tumors

If the one-year colonoscopy is normal, the next colonoscopy should be performed in three years; if those results are normal, the next colonoscopy should be performed in five years

After the one-year colonoscopy, the intervals between subsequent examinations may be shortened if there is evidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer or if adenoma findings (i.e., histology, size, and number) warrant earlier colonoscopy

Periodic examination of the rectum to identify local recurrence, usually performed by rigid proctoscopy, flexible proctoscopy, or rectal endoscopic ultrasonography at three- to six-month intervals for the first two to three years, may be considered after low anterior resection of rectal cancer; these examinations are independent of the colonoscopic examinations described above for detection of metachronous disease


Adapted with permission from Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):161.

EVIDENCE AND RATIONALE

Post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance has the potential to achieve two goals. The first is to detect recurrence of the primary cancer at an early stage, increasing the possibility of curative treatment and long-term survival. The second, equally significant aim is the detection of metachronous colorectal adenomas or cancers.

Prevention or Early Detection of Local Recurrence. Available studies have not demonstrated a survival benefit as a result of annual surveillance colonoscopy following colorectal cancer resection. This lack of benefit is most likely a result of the low rates of anastomotic and intraluminal recurrence (2 to 4 percent in most modern series), and of the fact that, when such recurrences occur, they are usually associated with advanced intra-abdominal and pelvic invasive diseases.3037

Local recurrence rates for rectal cancer may be up to 10 times greater than those for colon cancer,3841 largely because of lack of adherence to recommended surgical, chemotherapeutic, and radiotherapeutic interventions in many parts of the United States. These high rates of local recurrence provide a rationale for the use of surveillance sigmoidoscopy or endoscopic ultrasonography after resection of rectal cancer.

Surveillance colonoscopy and biopsy of the resection site three to six months after removal of a sessile malignant polyp by piecemeal resection is recommended. These procedures also are reasonable in patients with other cancers that are resected endoscopically and for which no surgical resection is planned.

Detection of Metachronous Neoplasia. In addition to evaluating the possible recurrence of a primary tumor, post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance also has the potential to prevent metachronous cancers (through adenoma detection and removal) or to find such cancers at an early, curable stage. Data supporting post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance for this purpose are much more robust than evidence for its use to detect local recurrence.

For post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance to achieve optimal value, careful clearing of synchronous neoplasia must take place in the perioperative period. Published series indicate that careful endoscopic evaluation of patients with colorectal cancer will detect synchronous cancers in the colon or rectum in up to 7 percent of patients at the time of initial diagnosis.37,4245 If appropriate colonoscopic clearing is performed at the time of the original diagnosis, any lesions found at subsequent endoscopy are categorized as metachronous, although it is conceivable that some of these are synchronous lesions that were missed at the initial endoscopy.

Based on the available research, it seems that one metachronous cancer is found for every 157 post-resection surveillance colonoscopies performed.42 Many of these cancers are found within the first two years after resection.46 Up to 65 percent of metachronous lesions detected at surveillance are stage A or B cancers, and patients with such lesions are likely to be candidates for repeat surgery.3032,37,45,47 Most metachronous lesions are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis and may elude detection for a significant time without routine surveillance.

Additional Considerations

Other factors that require consideration because of their potential impact on surveillance decisions and outcomes are outlined in Table 4.11

Table 4

Additional Surveillance Considerations for Patients with Colorectal Cancer

The current recommendations assume that colonoscopy is complete to the cecum and that bowel preparation is adequate; a repeat examination should be performed before planning a long-term surveillance program if the bowel preparation was not adequate

There is clear evidence that the quality of examinations is highly variable; a continuous quality-improvement process is critical to the effective application of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer prevention

A repeat examination is warranted if there is a concern that the polyp is incompletely removed, particularly if it shows high-grade dysplasia

Endoscopists should make clear recommendations to primary care physicians about when the next colonoscopy is indicated

Given the evolving nature of guidelines, it is important that physicians and patients remain in contact so that surveillance recommendations reflect changes in guidelines

Pending further investigation, performance of fecal occult blood testing is discouraged in patients undergoing colonoscopic surveillance

Discontinuation of surveillance colonoscopy should be considered in patients with serious comorbidities who have life expectancies of less than 10 years, according to the physician's judgment

Surveillance guidelines are intended for asymptomatic patients; those with new symptoms may need diagnostic work-up

The application of evolving technologies such as chromoendoscopy, magnification endoscopy, narrow-band imaging, and computed tomography colonography are not yet established for postpolypectomy surveillance


Adapted with permission from Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):145.

Table 4   Additional Surveillance Considerations for Patients with Colorectal Cancer

View Table

Table 4

Additional Surveillance Considerations for Patients with Colorectal Cancer

The current recommendations assume that colonoscopy is complete to the cecum and that bowel preparation is adequate; a repeat examination should be performed before planning a long-term surveillance program if the bowel preparation was not adequate

There is clear evidence that the quality of examinations is highly variable; a continuous quality-improvement process is critical to the effective application of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer prevention

A repeat examination is warranted if there is a concern that the polyp is incompletely removed, particularly if it shows high-grade dysplasia

Endoscopists should make clear recommendations to primary care physicians about when the next colonoscopy is indicated

Given the evolving nature of guidelines, it is important that physicians and patients remain in contact so that surveillance recommendations reflect changes in guidelines

Pending further investigation, performance of fecal occult blood testing is discouraged in patients undergoing colonoscopic surveillance

Discontinuation of surveillance colonoscopy should be considered in patients with serious comorbidities who have life expectancies of less than 10 years, according to the physician's judgment

Surveillance guidelines are intended for asymptomatic patients; those with new symptoms may need diagnostic work-up

The application of evolving technologies such as chromoendoscopy, magnification endoscopy, narrow-band imaging, and computed tomography colonography are not yet established for postpolypectomy surveillance


Adapted with permission from Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):145.

An area that raises many questions among physicians and the public is the possible use of other colorectal cancer screening tests as surveillance measures. In particular, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is commonly performed in post-polypectomy patients, despite the absence of convincing evidence of effectiveness in this setting. Although no positive impact on cancer outcomes has been proven, it has been shown that the use of routine FOBT after colonoscopy yields a significant number of false-positive results, leading to additional colonoscopies (and their attendant costs and risks) with minimal apparent benefit.4850 Based on this evidence, the joint USMSTF/ACS panel recommends against the routine use of FOBT in post-polypectomy patients.

The Authors

DURADO D. BROOKS, MD, MPH, is the director of prostate and colorectal cancers at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Ga.

SIDNEY J. WINAWER, MD, is the Paul Sherlock Chair in medicine, gastroenterology, and nutrition services in the Department of Medicine at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

DOUGLAS K. REX, MD, is a professor of medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.

ANN G. ZAUBER, PhD, is an associate attending biostatistician in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

CHARLES J. KAHI, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center and Indiana University School of Medicine.

ROBERT A. SMITH, PhD, is the director of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

BERNARD LEVIN, MD, is a professor emeritus at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

RICHARD WENDER, MD, is alumni professor and chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Jefferson Medical School, Philadelphia, Pa.

Address correspondence to Durado D. Brooks, MD, MPH, American Cancer Society, National Home Office, 250 Williams St., Atlanta, GA 30303. Reprints are not available from the authors.

Author disclosure: Dr. Rex is on the speakers' bureaus for TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Novartis, and Olympus America, Inc.; the speakers' bureaus and scientific advisory boards for C.B. Fleet Company, Inc., and Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and the scientific advisory boards for Given Imaging Ltd., SanofiAventis, Neoguide Systems, G.I. View Ltd., Avantis Medical Systems, American BioOptics, and MGI Pharma, Inc. He has received research support from Olympus America, Inc.; C.B. Fleet Company, Inc.; Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; G.I. View Ltd.; Given Imaging; and MGI Pharma, Inc. Dr. Levin has received research support from G.I. View Ltd. and Pfizer Inc. He serves as a consultant to G.I. View Ltd. (Israel) and Gene-News (Canada).

REFERENCES

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(1):43–66.

2. Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, Libbe SD, Ilstrup DM, MacCarty RL. Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology. 1987;93(5):1009–1013.

3. Vijan S, Inadomi J, Hayward RA, Hofer TP, Fendrick AM. Projections of demand and capacity for colonoscopy related to increasing rates of colorectal cancer screening in the United States. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20(5):507–515.

4. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al., for the Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(2):544–560.

5. Smith RA, von Eschenbach AC, Wender R, et al., for the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, ACS Colorectal Cancer Advisory Committee, ACS Endometrial Cancer Advisory Committee. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001—testing for early lung cancer detection [published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51(3):150]. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51(1):38–75.

6. Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN, Ransohoff DF. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):264–271.

7. Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J, Singh P, Chak A, Cooper GS. Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(9):654–659.

8. Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Johnston TK. Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55(3):307–314.

9. Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Neugut AI. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(3):230–236.

10. Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(12):880–886.

11. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):143–159.

12. Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, American Cancer Society. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):160–167.

13. Huang CS, O'Brien MJ, Yang S, Farraye FA. Hyperplastic polyps, serrated adenomas, and the serrated polyp neoplasia pathway. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(11):2242–2255.

14. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(27):1977–1981.

15. Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M, for the Italian Multicentre Study Group. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut. 2001;48(6):812–815.

16. Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(10):658–662.

17. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O'Brien MJ, et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(13):901–906.

18. Haseman JH, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Rex DK. Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer: evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45(6):451–455.

19. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic missrate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37(2):125–127.

20. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(1):24–28.

21. Barclay RI, Vicari JJ, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RI. Variation in adenoma detection rates and colonoscopic withdrawal times during screening colonoscopy [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(5):AB107.

22. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Green-law RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(24):2533–2541.

23. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al., for the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(6):1296–1308.

24. Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M, et al. Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology. 2005;129(1):34–41.

25. Loeve F, van Ballegooijen M, Boer R, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JD. Colorectal cancer risk in adenoma patients: a nationwide study. Int J Cancer. 2004;111(1):147–151.

26. Bonithon-Kopp C, Piard F, Fenger C, et al., for the European Cancer Prevention Organisation Study Group. Colorectal adenoma characteristics as predictors of recurrence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(3):323–333.

27. Martinez ME, Sampliner R, Marshall JR, Bhattacharyya AK, Reid ME, Alberts DS. Adenoma characteristics as risk factors for recurrence of advanced adenomas. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(5):1077–1083.

28. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale [published corrections appear in Gastroenterology. 1997; 112(3):1060 and Gastroenterology. 1998;114(3):625]. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(2):594–642.

29. Burt RW. Colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 2000;119(3):837–853.

30. Barillari P, Ramacciato G, Manetti G, Bovino A, Sammartino P, Stipa V. Surveillance of colorectal cancer: effectiveness of early detection of intraluminal recurrences on prognosis and survival of patients treated for cure. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39(4):388–393.

31. Granqvist S, Karlsson T. Postoperative follow-up of patients with colorectal carcinoma by colonoscopy. Eur J Surg. 1992;158(5):307–312.

32. Castells A, Bessa X, Daniels M, et al. Value of postoperative surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41(6):714–723.

33. Obrand DI, Gordon PH. Incidence and patterns of recurrence following curative resection for colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(1):15–24.

34. Togashi K, Konishi F, Ozawa A, et al. Predictive factors for detecting colorectal carcinomas in surveillance colonoscopy after colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(10 suppl):S47–S53.

35. Jeffery GM, Hickey BE, Hider P. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(1):CD002200.

36. Renehan AG, Egger M, Saunders MP, O'Dwyer ST. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2002;324(7341):813.

37. Kronborg O, Hage E, Deichgraeber E. The remaining colon after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. The first three years of a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983;26(3):172–176.

38. Holm T, Johansson H, Cedermark B, Ekelund G, Rutqvist LE. Influence of hospital- and surgeon-related factors on outcome after treatment of rectal cancer with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Br J Surg. 1997;84(5):657–663.

39. Porter GA, Soskolne CL, Yakimets WW, Newman SC. Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;227(2):157–167.

40. McArdle CS, Hole D. Impact of variability among surgeons on postoperative morbidity and mortality and ultimate survival. BMJ. 1991;302(6791):1501–1505.

41. Steele RJ. The influence of surgeon case volume on outcome in site-specific cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996;22(3):211–213.

42. Langevin JM, Nivatvongs S. The true incidence of synchronous cancer of the large bowel. A prospective study. Am J Surg. 1984;147(3):330–333.

43. Pagana TJ, Ledesma EJ, Mittelman A, Nava HR. The use of colonoscopy in the study of synchronous colorectal neoplasms. Cancer. 1984;53(2):356–359.

44. Carlsson G, Petrelli NJ, Nava H, Herrera L, Mittelman A. The value of colonoscopic surveillance after curative resection for colorectal cancer or synchronous adenomatous polyps. Arch Surg. 1987;122(11):1261–1263.

45. Weber CA, Deveney KE, Pellegrini CA, Way LW. Routine colonoscopy in the management of colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg. 1986;152(1):87–92.

46. Green RJ, Metlay JP, Propert K, et al. Surveillance for second primary colorectal cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy: an analysis of Intergroup 0089. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(4):261–269.

47. Juhl G, Larson GM, Mullins R, Bond S, Polk HC Jr. Six-year results of annual colonoscopy after resection of colorectal cancer. World J Surg. 1990;14(2):255–260.

48. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, Bond JH, et al. FOBT is of limited value in post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance [abstract]. Gastroenterology. 2002;122(4 suppl 1):A486. Abstract T1589.

49. Bampton PA, Sandford JJ, Cole SR, et al. Interval faecal occult blood testing in a colonoscopy based screening programme detects additional pathology. Gut. 2005;54(6):803–806.

50. Finkelstein S, Bini EJ. Annual fecal occult blood testing can be safely suspended for up to 5 years after a negative colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk patients [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(5):AB250.

This article is one in a series on cancer created in collaboration with the American Cancer Society. Coordinator of the series is Ted Gansler, MD, MBA, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.


Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Download PDF
  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article