Affiliation:
1. Surgical Research Fellow and Consultant Colorectal Surgeon, Department of Population Medicine, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board Wales UK
2. Oncology Fellow Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust London UK
3. Consultant Colorectal Surgeon Cardiff and Vale University Health Board Wales UK
4. Consultant Gastroenterologist and Clinical Reader, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board Wales UK
Abstract
AbstractBackground and AimPatients diagnosed with advanced colorectal lesions have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. International polyp surveillance guidelines have recently been updated. The aim of this systematic review was to assess surveillance recommendations for advanced colorectal polyps and compare the patient, polyp, and colonoscopy quality factors considered in their recommendations.MethodsGuidelines with surveillance recommendations for colorectal polyps were identified. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, TripPro, and guidelines identified by two blinded reviewers. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and performed in line with PRISMA guidelines.ResultsSix guidelines from the US Multi‐Society Task Force, British Society of Gastroenterology, Cancer Council Australia, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, and Asia‐Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening were included. The recommended surveillance interval of 3 years was consistent, but the criteria used for advanced polyps were variable. Polyp factors were the key determinant for when surveillance should be performed. Although all guidelines recognized their importance, the application of and evidence underlying patient characteristics and the quality of baseline colonoscopy were limited. All included guidelines were rated of average to high quality by the AGREE II instrument.ConclusionSurveillance guidelines for advanced colorectal polyps are of good quality but limited by their underlying evidence. Standardization of definitions would be valuable for both research and clinical application. Better knowledge of colonoscopist quality indicators and patient factors is recommended to further economize surveillance recommendations, minimize patient risk, and achieve optimal outcomes without increasing pressure on services.
Funder
Royal College of Surgeons of England
Subject
Gastroenterology,Hepatology
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献