Significance of small distal adenoma for detection of proximal neoplasms in the colorectum

The Association between Distal Findings and Proximal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Whether screening participants with distal hyperplastic polyps (HPs) detected by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) should be followed by subsequent colonoscopy is controversial. We evaluated the association between distal HPs and proximal neoplasia (PN)/advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in asymptomatic, average-risk patients.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 30 June 2016 and included all screening studies that examined the relationship between different distal findings and PN/APN. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We pooled absolute risks and odds ratios (ORs) with a random effects meta-analysis. Seven subgroup analyses were performed according to study characteristics. Heterogeneity was characterized with the I² statistics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 studies (104,961 subjects). When compared with normal distal findings, distal HP was not associated with PN (OR=1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.89-1.51, P=0.14, I²=40%) or APN (OR=1.09, 95% CI=0.87-1.36, P=0.39, I²=5%), while subjects with distal non-advanced or advanced adenoma had higher odds of PN/APN. Higher odds of PN/APN were observed for more severe distal lesions. Weaker association between distal and proximal findings was noticed in studies with higher quality, larger sample size, population-based design, and more stringent endoscopy quality-control measures. The Egger's regression tests showed all P>0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal HP is not associated with PN/APN in asymptomatic screening population when compared with normal distal findings. Hence, the presence of distal HP alone detected by FS does not automatically indicate colonoscopy referral for all screening participants, as other risk factors of PN/APN should be considered.

Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening colonoscopy examinations for colorectal cancer are offered in the United States and some European countries. Data on results and adverse effects of screening colonoscopy are limited. In autumn 2002, colonoscopy was introduced as part of a nationwide cancer screening program in Germany; it was offered to the general population for individuals 55 years of age or older. We collected and analyzed data from this program.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cross-sectional study, collecting results from 2,821,392 screening colonoscopies performed at more than 2100 practices by highly qualified endoscopists in Germany from January 2003 to December 2008. Data on participation, colorectal adenoma and cancer detection, and complications were collected using standardized documentation forms. The data generated were centrally processed and evaluated.

RESULTS

The cumulative participation rate was 17.2% of eligible women and 15.5% of eligible men 55-74 years old. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 19.4%, with a higher rate in men (25.8% vs 16.7% in women). Advanced adenomas were found in 6.4% of patients. Carcinomas were detected in 25,893 subjects (0.9%); most were of an early UICC stage (I, 47.3%; II, 22.3%; III, 20.7%; IV, 9.6%). The ADRs for gastroenterologists and nongastroenterologists were 25.1% and 22.3%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.21). The overall complication rate was 2.8/1000 colonoscopies, and the rate of serious complications was 0.58/1000 colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

A nationwide colonoscopy screening program that uses highly qualified endoscopists can detect a significant number of adenomas and early-stage carcinomas. The ADR for gastroenterologists was higher than for nongastroenterologists.

The relationship between distal and proximal colonic neoplasia: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between proximal colonic neoplasia and distal lesions as a function of the lesion type. The extent to which health, demographic, and study characteristics moderate this association was also examined.

DATA SOURCES

Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies allowing the calculation of OR of proximal neoplasia (PN) and proximal advanced neoplasia (PAN) for distal hyperplastic polyps (HP), nonadvanced adenomas (NAA), adenomas (AD), and advanced neoplasia (AN); also, studies for which the proportions of subjects with isolated (i.e., not accompanied by distal lesions) PN (IPN) and PAN (IPAN) over the total number of subjects with PN or PAN could be calculated.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Thirty-two studies were included for calculating OR between proximal neoplasia and distal lesions and 40 studies for proportions of IPN and IPAN. Subgroup analyses were conducted for presence of symptoms, prevalence of PN and PAN, age, proportion of males, geographic region, study design, and demarcation point.

RESULTS

The association between distal lesions and proximal neoplasia increased with the severity of the distal lesions. Odds of PN were higher in subjects with HP compared to subjects with a normal distal colon. Odds of PN and PAN were higher in subjects with NAA, AD, and AN than in subjects with a normal distal colon. PAN were more strongly associated with distal lesions in asymptomatic populations, in young populations, and in populations with a low prevalence of PAN. In approximately 60% of the subjects with PN and PAN, these neoplasia were isolated.

LIMITATIONS

The present results may be affected by publication bias and dichotomization in the subgroup analyses. Limitations related to the individual studies include self-selection, lesion misclassification and misses, and technological advances leading to changes in the detection of lesions during the time span of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

All types of distal lesions are predictive of PN. All types of distal neoplasia are predictive of PAN. The association between distal lesions and proximal neoplasia increases with the severity of the distal lesion. The association between distal lesions and proximal advanced neoplasia is stronger in low-risk groups as compared to high-risk groups.

Is there a role for sigmoidoscopy in symptomatic patients? Analysis of a study correlating distal and proximal colonic neoplasias detected by colonoscopy in a symptomatic population

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam to investigate patients with colonic complaints. However, its availability is limited in developing countries. Sigmoidoscopy has been advocated as a first procedure in colorectal cancer screening strategies, in order to select those who need colonoscopy.

AIM

To study the correlation between distal and proximal colonic neoplasias in symptomatic patients 50 years or older and patients 40 to 49 years old who underwent colonoscopy at a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit in 1999 and 2000 with the purpose to evaluate its role in a symptomatic population.

METHODS

All colonoscopies performed in our Department in 1999-2000 were reviewed. The distal colon was defined as the colonic segment aboral to the splenic flexure. Advanced neoplasias were defined as adenomas larger than 10 millimeters and adenocarcinomas.

RESULTS

Of the 2,701 colonoscopies retrieved, 1,125 were enrolled in this study. Prevalence rates for adenoma, advanced adenoma and carcinoma were 28.9%, 4.6% and 4% in the group of 830 patients 50 years or older (mean age 65 years, 491 women). The finding of one small (<10 mm) adenoma in the distal bowel doubled the likelihood of finding a proximal neoplasia (OR = 2.12, 95% CI, 1.27-3.54), and multiple (OR = 3.99, 95% CI, 1.72-9.28) or advanced (OR = 3.73, 95% CI, 1.81-7.7) adenomas increased this risk even further. Of the patients without adenoma or carcinoma in the distal colon, 1.93% had proximal advanced neoplasia. In the group of 40 to 49-year-old patients (n = 395; mean age 44.8 years, 208 women) the prevalence of adenomas (14.9%), advanced adenomas (3.4%), and carcinomas (1.7%) was lower.

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood of finding a proximal lesion is greater in patients with distal neoplasias. This likelihood is further increased when adenomas are multiple or larger than 10 mm. One out of 52 patients 50 years or older with an apparently normal distal colon has advanced proximal neoplasia. Sigmoidoscopy is not an adequate exam for symptomatic patients aged 50 years or older.

Clinical significance of small polyps found during screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy

In deciding how to interpret the significance and management of small distal adenomatous polyps found on FS, one must first decide on the goal of a screening program. If the goal is maximal reduction of CRC risk, regardless of cost, there is little argument that screening colonoscopy is the most effective approach. Unfortunately cost and cost-effectiveness are important considerations when administering a screening program with a fixed budget. Although comparing the cost-effectiveness of different strategies is beyond the scope of this article, rigorous comparisons by other authors have suggested that a sigmoidoscopy-based approach is more cost-effective than a colonoscopy-based approach. The most cost-effective approach may change, however, if the frequency of screening and surveillance can be reduced without significantly impacting effectiveness. Other authors using assumptions including low compliance rates for regular FOBT or FS have determined that colonoscopy every 10 years is the most cost-effective approach. Multiple studies support the recommendation that villous polyps regardless of size and adenomatous polyps greater than 1 cm found on FS are important markers for the presence of advanced polyps and cancer in the proximal colon. These patients should undergo colonoscopy. If one assumes that a sigmoidoscopy-based approach is reasonable, and accepts that such an approach always misses a small number of proximal lesions, how should one manage patients with a small adenomatous polyp on FS? In aggregate, the studies discussed previously suggest that patients with no distal polyps, distal hyperplastic polyps, or a single small distal tubular adenoma have a similar and low risk of advanced proximal adenomas of the colon. There are some studies, however, that do not support this. With the exception of the study by Read et al, these studies included patients at elevated risk of CRC because of a family history, or inclusion of patients with positive FOBT (or not tested). The study by Read et al also included patients with distal villous adenomas in their low-risk group. Because a sigmoidoscopy-based strategy typically excludes patients at elevated risk, these results may not be applicable to low-risk patients undergoing sigmoidoscopy. Given these caveats, what can one conclude about the predictive value of a small tubular adenoma found on FS? These studies suggest that the risk of proximal advanced polyps is similar or slightly increased in patients with a distal adenoma than those with a negative FS. The risk of finding an advanced adenoma seems to be 0% to 4% regardless of the findings of no polyps, hyperplastic polyps, or small tubular adenomatous polyps on FS in low-risk patients. A small portion of patients with hyperplastic polyps found on FS have advanced proximal adenomas. If a hyperplastic polyp on FS is not an indication for colonoscopy and the risk of proximal advanced adenomas is similar in patients with only a small distal adenoma, it is inconsistent to recommend colonoscopy for a small distal tubular adenoma and not a hyperplastic polyp. Based on the studies of asymptomatic patients with no family history and negative FOBT, the authors believe it is reasonable to defer colonoscopy if no polyp, a hyperplastic, or a small tubular adenoma is found at sigmoidoscopy in low-risk patients. If the patient or physician is unwilling to accept a small (0% to 4%) chance of missing an advanced proximal lesion, then a sigmoidoscopy-based approach (regardless of the threshold to go on to colonoscopy) is not appropriate. Screening FS remains an effective examination to screen for CRC in asymptomatic patients. There is no question that colonoscopy clearly detects more lesions than FS. It remains to be seen if the increase in costs and risks justifies the improved detection rate of colonic polyps. Given manpower issues that face us today, and examining the question from a population perspective, reserving colonoscopy for only those patients with an advanced distal polyp on FS gives the biggest yield.

The role of adenoma for colorectal cancer development: differences in the distribution of adenoma with low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, and cancer that invades the submucosa

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to elucidate the role of adenoma in the early stage of colorectal cancer development, we focused on the clinicopathologic relationship between adenoma with low-grade dysplasia (ALGD), adenoma with high-grade dysplasia (AHGD), and cancer that invades the submucosa in the colorectum.

METHODS

We clinicopathologically examined a total of 553 adenomas and 58 cancers that invaded the submucosa. The tissues were excised from 479 patients who underwent total colonoscopy.

RESULTS

The percentage of ALGD was 79.9% in the proximal colon, 70.5% in the distal colon, and 48.3% in the rectum, respectively. The percentages of AHGD and cancer were 14.5% and 5.6% in the proximal colon, 21.3% and 8.2% in the distal colon, and 35.4% and 16.3% in the rectum, respectively. In contrast with the distribution of ALGD, the distribution of both AHGD and cancer shifted from the proximal to the distal site, with a statistical significance (P <.01). When the distribution of adenoma was compared according to tumor size, both large- and small-sized AHGD showed a similar cancer distribution, however, both large- and small-sized ALGD showed different distributions.

CONCLUSION

An important role of AHGD for cancer development in the colorectum may relate to the similar distribution between AHGD and cancer; however, the different distributions observed between ALGD, AHGD, and cancer suggested that ALGD has only a slight association with the development of cancer.