International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 929–939 | Cite as

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

  • F. Becker
  • G. Nusko
  • J. Welke
  • E. G. Hahn
  • U. Mansmann
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Colorectal adenoma Colonoscopy Surveillance Follow-up Complications Sensitivity Effectiveness 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Part of this work was supported by a grant from the Johannes and Frieda Marohn Stiftung Erlangen, Germany.

Competing interest

There are no competing interests for each author.

References

  1. 1.
    Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC (1975) The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 36:2251–2270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morson BC (1974) Evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 34(Suppl 3):845–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 8:351–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nusko G, Mansmann U, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Kessler H, Wittekind C, Hahn EG (1997) Differences between colorectal adenomas removed endoscopically and surgically. Hepato-Gastroenterology 44:1063–1068PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 29:626–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 12:267–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 32:1035–1041PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nusko G, Mansmann U, Wiest G, Brueckl W, Kirchner T, Hahn EG (2001) Right-sided shift found in metachronous colorectal adenomas. Endoscopy 33:574–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackmann R (1951) The adenoma-carcinoma sequence in cancer of the colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 93:327–330Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atkin WS, Cuzick J, Northover JMA, Whynes DK (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by once-only sigmoidoscopy. Lancet 341:736–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 329:1977–1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Atkin WS, Saunders BP (2002) Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 51(Suppl 5):V6–V9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nusko G, Mansmann U, Kirchner T, Hahn EG (2002) Risk related surveillance following colorectal polypectomy. Gut 51:424–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmiegel WA, Pox C, Adler G, Fleig W, Fölsch U, Frühmorgen P et al (2004) S3-guidelines conference “colorectal carcinoma” 2004. Z Gastroenterol 42:1129–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 124:544–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ransohoff DF, Lang CA, Kuo HS (1991) Colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy: considerations of cost-effectiveness. Ann Int Med 114:177–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winawer SJ (1999) Appropriate intervals for surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc 49:S63–S66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mansmann U (2000) A loss-effectiveness analysis of risk-adapted surveillance after colorectal polypectomy. Stud Health Technol Inform 77:395–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matek W, Guggenmoos-Holzmann I, Demling L (1985) Follow-up of patients with colorectal adenomas. Endoscopy 17:175–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 81:60–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 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 328:901–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Kuntz KM (2000) Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA 284:1954–1961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 16:799–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, Libbe SD, Ilstrup DM, MacCarty RL (1987) Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology 93:1009–1013PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eide TJ (1986) Risk of colorectal cancer in adenoma-bearing individuals within a defined population. Int J Cancer 38:173–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laufer I, Smith NC, Mullens JE (1976) The radiological demonstration of colorectal polyps undetected by endoscopy. Gastroenterology 70:167–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thoeni RF, Menuck L (1977) Comparison of barium enema and colonoscopy in the detection of small colonic polyps. Radiology 124:631–635PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams AR, Balasooriya BA, Day DW (1982) Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool. Gut 23:835–842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 82:1769–1772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 112:24–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 30:444–447PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 94:194–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 342:1766–1772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 21:1601–1623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 112:594–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 67:584–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wolff WI, Shinya H (1973) A new approach to colonic polyps. Ann Surg 178:367–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Geenen JE, Schmitt MG Jr, Wu WC, Hogan WJ (1975) Major complications of coloscopy: bleeding and perforation. Am J Dig Dis 20:231–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 235:928–930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Smith LE (1976) Fiberoptic colonoscopy: complications of colonoscopy and polypectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 19:407–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frühmorgen P, Demling L (1979) Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in the federal republic of Germany. Results of an inquiry. Endoscopy 11:146–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Macrae FA, Tan KG, Williams CB (1983) Towards safer colonoscopy: a report on the complications of 5,000 diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopies. Gut 24:376–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Norfleet RG (1992) Colonoscopy and polypectomy in nonhospitalized patients. Gastrointest Endosc 28:15–16Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reiertsen O, Skjötö J, Jacobsen CD, Rosseland AR (1987) Complications of fiberoptic gastrointestinal endoscopy—five years’ experience in a central hospital. Endoscopy 19:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 83:123–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nivatvongs S (1988) Complications in colonoscopic polypectomy: lessons to learn from an experience with 1,579 polyps. Am Surg 54:61–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Frühmorgen P, Pfähler A (1990) Komplikationen bei 39397 endoskopischen Untersuchungen—eine 7jährige prospektive Dokumentation über Art und Häufigkeit. Leber Magen Darm 1:20–32Google Scholar
  49. 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 6:273–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 163:257–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Waye JD, Lewis BGS, Yessayan S (1992) Colonoscopy: a prospective report of complications. J Clin Gastroenterol 15:347–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 38:472–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 28:869–874PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rosen L, Bub DS, Reed JF III, Nastasee SA (1993) Hemorrhage following colonoscopic polypectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 36:1126–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jentschura D, Raute M, Winter J, Henkel Th, Kraus M, Manegold BC (1994) Complications in endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Surg Endosc 8:672–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Puchner R, Allinger S, Doblhofer F, Wallner M, Knoflach P (1996) Complications of diagnostic and interventional colonoscopy. Wien Klin Wochenschr 108:142–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gibbs DH, Opelka FG, Beck DE, Hicks TC, Timmcke AE, Gathright JB Jr (1996) Postpolypectomy colonic hemorrhage. Dis Colon Rectum 39:806–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Eckardt VF, Kanzler G, Schmitt T, Eckardt AJ, Bernhard G (1999) Complications and adverse effects of colonoscopy with selective sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 49:560–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sieg A, Hachmoeller-Eisenbach U, Eisenbach T (2001) Prospective evaluation of complications in outpatient GI endoscopy: a survey among German gastroenterologists. Gastrointest Endosc 53:620–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tran DQ, Rosen L, Kim R, Riether RD, Stasik JJ, Khubchandani IT (2001) Actual colonoscopy: what are the risks of perforation? Am Surg 67:845–847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 55:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Normand SL (1999) Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat Med 18:321–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Farley DR, Bannon MP, Zietlow SP, Pemberton JH, Ilstrup DM, Larson DR (1997) Management of colonoscopic perforations. Mayo Clin Proc 72:729–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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 50:322–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA (2000) Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol 95:3418–3422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sieg A, Theilmeier A (2006) Results of coloscopy screening in 2005—an internet-based documentation. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 131:379–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sonnenberg A, Delco F (2002) Cost-effectiveness of a single colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 162:163–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 15:631–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Byers T, Gorsky R (1992) Estimates of costs and effects of screening for colorectal cancer in the United States. Cancer 70:1288–1295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD et al (1997) Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 112:594–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM (2000) Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 133:573–584PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 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 70:1236–1245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG (2002) The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 12:1–9, v.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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 28:239–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 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 45:1565–1572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Müller AD, Sonnenberg A (1995) Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 123:904–910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 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 92:682–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Eickhoff A, Maar C, Birkner B, Riemann JF (2003) Dickdarmkrebs in Deutschland. Internist (Berl) 44:278–286Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Singh H, Turner D, Xue L, Targownik LE, Bernstein CN (2006) Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination. JAMA 295:2366–2373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Becker
    • 1
  • G. Nusko
    • 2
  • J. Welke
    • 3
  • E. G. Hahn
    • 4
  • U. Mansmann
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Medical Biometry and InformaticsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineHospital Bad WindsheimBad WindsheimGermany
  3. 3.Department of Family MedicineUniversity CharitéBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of Medicine IUniversity of ErlangenErlangenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and EpidemiologyUniversity of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations