Download PDF
Endoscopy 2018; 50(03): 221-229
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-121221
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Patients’ willingness to defer resection of diminutive polyps: results of a multicenter survey

Daniel von Renteln
1   Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Montréal University Hospital (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
,
Mickael Bouin
1   Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Montréal University Hospital (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
,
Alan N. Barkun
2   Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
,
Audrey Weber
1   Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Montréal University Hospital (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
,
Douglas J. Robertson
3   Department of Gastroenterology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA
4   Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
,
Joseph C. Anderson
4   Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
,
Heiko Pohl
3   Department of Gastroenterology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA
4   Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
5   Department of Gastroenterology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 14 June 2017

accepted after revision 21 September 2017

Publication Date:
08 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Current colonoscopy practice requires removal of diminutive polyps. This is associated with costs, but the benefits to colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention remain unclear. The study aim was to understand patients’ willingness to defer resection of diminutive polyps and to examine the factors that influence patients’ decisions.

Patients and methods Adults presenting for a colonoscopy were surveyed at three hospitals in the USA and Canada. Survey domains included: patient characteristics, risk perception, knowledge about CRC risk, willingness to defer polyp resection, and associated concerns. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who would be willing to participate in a clinical trial that deferred resection of diminutive polyps. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with willingness to defer diminutive polyp resection.

Results 557 eligible individuals completed the survey (mean age 63; 61 % men), with 50 % of respondents being willing to participate in a randomized trial in which resection of diminutive polyps would be deferred until the next surveillance colonoscopy (95 % confidence interval [CI] 46 % – 55 %). Outside of a clinical trial, 57 % of participants would be agreeable to deferring resection of diminutive polyps (95 %CI 51 % – 63 %). Willingness to defer diminutive polyp resection was associated with higher education (P = 0.001), greater knowledge about cancer risk (P = 0.002), and a lower perception of cancer risk (all P < 0.001). Age, sex, income, a history of polyps, and a first-degree family member with CRC were not associated with willingness to defer diminutive polyp resection.

Conclusions More than half of individuals undergoing a routine colonoscopy would be agreeable to deferring resection of diminutive polyps and participating in a trial to evaluate this approach.

Appendix e1

 

  • References

  • 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. NEJM 2012; 366: 687-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS. et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. NEJM 2013; 369: 1106-1114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. NEJM 1993; 329: 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J. et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1100-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Aldridge AJ, Simson JN. Histological assessment of colorectal adenomas by size. Are polyps less than 10 mm in size clinically important?. Eur J Surg 2001; 167: 777-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Stock C. et al. Natural history of colorectal adenomas: birth cohort analysis among 3.6 million participants of screening colonoscopy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013; 22: 1043-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Butterly LF, Chase MP, Pohl H. et al. Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 343-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Church JM. Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 481-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mizuno K, Suzuki Y, Takeuchi M. et al. Natural history of diminutive colorectal polyps: long-term prospective observation by colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 2014; 26: 84-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A. et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 2007; 109: 2213-2221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) Colonography in Adults. Resolution 36. Revised 2009. Available from: Accessed: 9 October 2017 http://doseoptimization.jacr.org/Content/PDF/Colonography.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D. et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 2009; 58: 241-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kim DH, Pooler BD, Weiss JM. et al. Five year colorectal cancer outcomes in a large negative CT colonography screening cohort. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1488-1494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Pooler BD. et al. Assessment of volumetric growth rates of small colorectal polyps with CT colonography: a longitudinal study of natural history. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 711-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC. et al. Evolution of screen-detected small (6–9 mm) polyps after a 3-year surveillance interval: assessment of growth with CT colonography compared with histopathology. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1682-1690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Patel S, Scott FI, McGill S. et al. 945 cost effectiveness analysis evaluating real-time characterization of diminutive colorectal polyp histology using narrow band imaging (NBI): implications for the resect and discard strategy. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB116-AB117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lieberman DA. Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 1995; 109: 1781-1790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Iwatate M, Ikumoto T, Hattori S. et al. NBI and NBI combined with magnifying colonoscopy. Diagn Ther Endosc 2012; 2012: 173269
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ponugoti PL, Cummings OW, Rex DK. Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 34-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rex DK, Kahi C, O'Brien M. et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 419-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hofstad B, Vatn MH, Andersen SN. et al. Growth of colorectal polyps: redetection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years. Gut 1996; 39: 449-456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Loeve F, Brown ML, Boer R. et al. Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 557-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ. et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. NEJM 2007; 357: 1403-1412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tanaka S, Saitoh Y, Matsuda T. et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps. J Gastroenterol 2015; 50: 252-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Repici A, Hassan C, Vitetta E. et al. Safety of cold polypectomy for <10mm polyps at colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 27-31
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Buddingh KT, Herngreen T, Haringsma J. et al. Location in the right hemi-colon is an independent risk factor for delayed post-polypectomy hemorrhage: a multi-center case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1119-1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Heldwein W, Dollhopf M, Rosch T. et al. The Munich Polypectomy Study (MUPS): prospective analysis of complications and risk factors in 4000 colonic snare polypectomies. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 1116-1122
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hui AJ, Wong RM, Ching JY. et al. Risk of colonoscopic polypectomy bleeding with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents: analysis of 1657 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Watabe H, Yamaji Y, Okamoto M. et al. Risk assessment for delayed hemorrhagic complication of colonic polypectomy: polyp-related factors and patient-related factors. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 73-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sawhney MS, Salfiti N, Nelson DB. et al. Risk factors for severe delayed postpolypectomy bleeding. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 115-119
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A. et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 118-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lee CK, Shim JJ, Jang JY. Cold snare polypectomy vs. cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1593-1600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 von Renteln D, Pohl H. Polyp resection - controversial practices and unanswered questions. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2017; 8: e76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L. et al. Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 166-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C. et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 880-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gellad ZF, Voils CI, Lin L. et al. Clinical practice variation in the management of diminutive colorectal polyps: results of a national survey of gastroenterologists. American J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 873-878
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Jana G, Hashash IH, Swaytha G. et al. Implementation and implication of ignoring small polyps at colonoscopy. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 1: 001-004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rex DK, Hardacker K, MacPhail M. et al. Determining the adenoma detection rate and adenomas per colonoscopy by photography alone: proof-of-concept study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 245-250
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Jover R, Bretthauer M, Dekker E. et al. Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 571-578
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Force USPST, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2016; 315: 2564-2575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health C, Bacchus CM, Dunfield L et al. Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. CMAJ 2016; 188: 340-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kuntz KM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM. et al. A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: the role of assumptions about adenoma progression. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 530-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Committee AT, Abu Dayyeh BK, Thosani N et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 502 , e501–502, e516
    PubMedGoogle Scholar