Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 16–23 | Cite as

Secondary Prevention of Colorectal Adenomas: Is There an Optimal Follow-up for Colorectal Adenomas?

Article

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the Western world. Its development is typically through colorectal adenomas. Colorectal cancer prevalence may be reduced substantially by primary prevention including colonoscopy and polypectomy. Secondary prevention applies to populations that have been diagnosed with colorectal adenomas, and its goal is to prevent the development of additional adenomas. It is accomplished mainly by endoscopic surveillance with polypectomy. Additional measures include chemoprevention, used in selected patients only, and modification of risk factors such as smoking, high body mass index, and poor nutrition. This article reviews the current professional guidelines for endoscopic surveillance and adherence by physicians and patients. Measures to increase surveillance efficacy include standardization of colonoscopy among endoscopists and enhanced endoscopy techniques. This article also reviews evidence for the impact of lifestyle modification. It appears that the endoscopic surveillance protocol is often personalized because of the lack of standardization of baseline colonoscopy, suboptimal adherence to the guidelines, and a deficiency in the guidelines with regard to proper risk stratification.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer Adenoma Follow up Polypectomy Secondary prevention Endoscopic surveillance Colonoscopy Quality control Enhanced endoscopy Adenoma detection rate 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al.: Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009, 59:225–249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A, et al.: Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:2061–2068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strul H, Kariv R, Leshno M, et al.: The prevalence rate and anatomic location of colorectal adenoma and cancer detected by colonoscopy in average-risk individuals aged 40–80 years. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:255–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    East JE, Saunders BP, Jass JR: Sporadic and syndromic hyperplastic polyps and serrated adenomas of the colon: classification, molecular genetics, natural history, and clinical management. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2008, 37:25–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skibber J, Minsky B, Hoff P: Cancer of the colon. In Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology, edn 6. Edited by DeVita V, Hellman S, Rosenberg S. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001:1216–1271.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    • Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al.: Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993, 329:1977–1983. The National Polyp Study is the foundation for colorectal adenoma surveillance protocols.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al.: Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008, 58:130–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lieberman D: Screening, surveillance, and prevention of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2008, 18:595–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martínez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA, et al.: A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009, 136:832–841.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Kahi CJ, Rex DK, Imperiale TF: Screening, surveillance, and primary prevention for colorectal cancer: a review of the recent literature. Gastroenterology 2008, 135:380–399. This article comprehensively reviews the risk factors for colorectal adenoma and CRC and the different options for screening, surveillance, and chemoprevention. It also offers a concise discussion on the issue of quality control in colonoscopy.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al.: Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2006, 56:143–159. This is a detailed review of the guidelines for endoscopic surveillance after polypectomy as established by the ACS-USMSTF.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pasetto LM, Monfardini S: Colorectal cancer screening in elderly patients: when should be more useful? Cancer Treat Rev 2007, 33:528–532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferguson CB, Porter KG, Murphy SJ: Nine-year follow-up of a patient with attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis treated with cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors. Scand J Gastroenterol 2008, 43:1534–1536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hassan C, Zullo A, Winn S, et al.: The colorectal malignant polyp: scoping a dilemma. Dig Liver Dis 2007, 39:92–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Laiyemo AO, Murphy G, Albert PS: Postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance guidelines: predictive accuracy for advanced adenoma at 4 years. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148:419–426. This article assesses the 2006 postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance guidelines.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saini SD, Rahul NS, Kuhn L, et al.: Why don’t gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines? J Clin Gastroenterol 2009, 43:554–558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mulder SA, Ouwendijk RJ, van Leerdam ME, et al.: A nationwide survey evaluating adherence to guidelines for follow-up after polypectomy or treatment for colorectal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008, 42:487–492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chivers KC, Basnyat P, Taffinder N: The impact of national guidelines on the waiting list for colonoscopy: a quantitative clinical audit. Colorectal Dis 2009 Apr 10 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J, et al.: Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med 2006, 145:654–659.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    West NJ, Boustiere C, Fischbach W, et al.: Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: differences in approach; similar barriers to overcome. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009, 24:731–740.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rapuri S, Spencer J, Eckels D: Importance of surveillance and postpolypectomy compliance to follow-up screening—review of literature. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008, 23:453–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al.: Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:343–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, et al.: Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009, 6:1–8. This article describes the limitation of colonoscopy in detecting right-sided colonic neoplasia.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, et al.: Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007, 132:96–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al.: Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:2533–2541.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morini S, Hassan C, Zullo A, et al.: Detection of colonic polyps according to insertion/withdrawal phases of colonoscopy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009, 24;527–530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, et al.: Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 min on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008, 135:1892–1898.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thuraisingam AI, Brown JL, Anderson JT: What are the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic photographs in determining completion of colonoscopy? Results from an online questionnaire. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008, 20:567–571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, et al.: A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 2006, 63:894–909.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chan MY, Cohen H, Spiegel BM: fewer polyps detected by colonoscopy as the day progresses at a Veteran’s Administration teaching hospital. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009 Jul 22 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen SC, Rex DK: Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007, 102:856–861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Millan MS, Gross P, Manilich E, et al.: Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008, 51:1217–1220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    • Bretagne JF, Ponchon T: Do we need to embrace adenoma detection rate as the main quality control parameter during colonoscopy? Endoscopy 2008, 40:523–528. This article clearly explains the need for quality control in colonoscopy and the rationale behind using ADR as a quality indicator.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sanaka MR, Deepinder F, Thota PN, et al.: Adenomas are detected more often in morning than in afternoon colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2009, 104:1659–1664.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanaka MR, Super DM, Feldman ES, et al.: Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative. Gastrointest Endosc 2006, 63:97–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ling BS, Schoen RE, Trauth JM, et al.: Physicians encouraging colorectal screening: a randomized controlled trial of enhanced office and patient management on compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169:47–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Matsumoto T, Esaki M, Fujisawa R, et al.: Chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging colonoscopy, and autofluorescence colonoscopy for detection of diminutive colorectal neoplasia in familial adenomatous polyposis. Dis Colon Rectum 2009, 52:1160–1165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chang CC, Hsieh CR, Lou HY, et al.: Comparative study of conventional colonoscopy, magnifying chromoendoscopy, and magnifying narrow-band imaging systems in the differential diagnosis of small colonic polyps between trainee and experienced endoscopist. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009 Jul 15 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Inoue T, Murano M, Murano N, et al.: Comparative study of conventional colonoscopy and pan-colonic narrow-band imaging system in the detection of neoplastic colonic polyps: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gastroenterol 2008, 43:45–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Adler A, Aschenbeck J, Yenerim T, et al.: Narrow-band versus white-light high definition television endoscopic imaging for screening colonoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2009, 136:410–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pellise M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Cardens A, et al.: Impact of wide angle, high definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2008, 135:1062–1068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    East JE, Stavrindis M, Thomas-Gibson S, et al.: A comparative study of standard vs. high definition colonoscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008, 28:768–776.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Matsuda T, Saito Y, Fu KI, et al.: Does autofluorescence imaging videoendoscopy system improve the colonoscopic polyp detection rate?—a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2008, 103:1926–1932.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McCallum AL, Jenkins JT, Gillen D, et al.: Evaluation of autofluorescence colonoscopy for the detection and diagnosis of colonic polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2008, 68:283–290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fatima H, Rex DK, Rothstein R, et al.: Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008, 6:109–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rex DK: Third eye retroscope: rationale, efficacy, challenges. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2009, 9:1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y: Improved colorectal adenoma detection with a transparent retractable extension device. Am J Gastroenterol 2008, 103:341–345.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sansbury LB, Wanke K, Albert PS, et. al.: The effect of strict adherence to a high-fiber, high-fruit and -vegetable, and low-fat eating pattern on adenoma recurrence. Am J Epidemiol 2009, 170:576–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shrubsole MJ, Wu H, Ness RM, et al.: Alcohol drinking, cigarette smoking, and risk of colorectal adenomatous and hyperplastic polyps. Am J Epidemiol 2008, 167:1050–1058.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kang HW, Kim D, Kim HJ, et al.: Visceral obesity and insulin resistance as risk factors for colorectal adenoma: a cross-sectional, case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009 Sep 15 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Le Leu RK, Hu Y, Brown IL, et al.: Synbiotic intervention of bifidobacterium lactis and resistant starch protects against colorectal cancer development in rats. Carcinogenesis 2009 Aug 20 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Faris MA, Takruri HR, Shomaf MS, et al.: Chemopreventive effect of raw and cooked lentils (Lens culinaris L) and soybeans (Glycine max) against azoxymethane-induced aberrant crypt foci. Nutr Res 2009, 29:355–362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jedrychowski W, Maugeri U: An apple a day may hold colorectal cancer at bay: recent evidence from a case-control study. Rev Environ Health 2009, 24:59–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Satia JA, Littman A, Slatore CG, et al.: Associations of herbal and specialty supplements with lung and colorectal cancer risk in the VITamins and Lifestyle study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009, 18:1419–1428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and Liver DiseaseTel Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations