Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020

Cesare Hassan; Giulio Antonelli; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Jaroslaw Regula; Michael Bretthauer; Stanislas Chaussade; Evelien Dekker; Monika Ferlitsch; Antonio Gimeno-Garcia; Rodrigo Jover; Mette Kalager; Maria Pellisé; Christian Pox; Luigi Ricciardiello; Matthew Rutter; Lise Mørkved Helsingen; Arne Bleijenberg; Carlo Senore; Jeanin E. van Hooft; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Enrique Quintero

doi:10.1055/a-1185-3109

Endoscopy, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Endoscopy 2020; 52(08): 687-700
DOI: 10.1055/a-1185-3109

Guideline

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020

Cesare Hassan

¹Gastroenterology Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy

,

Giulio Antonelli

¹Gastroenterology Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy

,

Jean-Marc Dumonceau

²Gastroenterology Service, Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium

,

Jaroslaw Regula

³Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education and Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland

,

Michael Bretthauer

⁴Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Norway

,

Stanislas Chaussade

⁵Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Faculté de Médecine, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Université Paris Descartes, France

,

Evelien Dekker

⁶Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

,

Monika Ferlitsch

⁷Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University Vienna, and Quality Assurance Working Group, Austrian Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria

,

Antonio Gimeno-Garcia

⁸Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Instituto Universitario de Tecnologías Biomédicas (ITB) & Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Canarias (CIBICAN), Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

,

Rodrigo Jover

⁹Service of Digestive Medicine, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL Foundation), Alicante, Spain

,

Mette Kalager

⁴Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Norway

,

Maria Pellisé

¹⁰Gastroenterology Department, Endoscopy Unit, ICMDiM, Hospital Clinic, CIBEREHD, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

,

Christian Pox

¹¹Department of Medicine, St. Joseph Stift, Bremen, Germany

,

Luigi Ricciardiello

¹²Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy

,

Matthew Rutter

¹³Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK and Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

,

Lise Mørkved Helsingen

⁴Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Norway

,

Arne Bleijenberg

⁶Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

,

Carlo Senore

¹⁴Epidemiology and screening Unit – CPO, Città della Salute e della Scienza University Hospital, Turin, Italy

,

Jeanin E. van Hooft

⁶Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

,

Mario Dinis-Ribeiro

¹⁵CIDES/CINTESIS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

,

Enrique Quintero

⁸Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Instituto Universitario de Tecnologías Biomédicas (ITB) & Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Canarias (CIBICAN), Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Main Recommendations

The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy.

1 ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

2 ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

3 ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.

Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

4 If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years.

Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening.

5 ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years.

Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided ([Fig. 1]).

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau J-M. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
2 Dumonceau J-M, Hassan C, Riphaus A. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline Development Policy. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 626-629
3 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926
4 Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Brenner A. et al. Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 823-834
5 Lee JK, Jensen CD, Levin TR. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer and related death after adenoma removal in a large, community-based population. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 884-894
6 Helsingen LM, Vandvik PO, Jodal HC. et al. Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2019; 367: l5515
7 Click B, Pinsky PF, Hickey T. et al. Association of colonoscopy adenoma findings with long-term colorectal cancer incidence. JAMA 2018; 319: 2021-2031
8 Wieszczy P, Kaminski MF, Franczyk R. et al. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after removal of adenomas during screening colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 875-883
9 He X, Hang D, Wu K. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after removal of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 852-861
10 Holme Ø, Bretthauer M, Eide TJ. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with serrated polyps. Gut 2015; 64: 929-936
11 Erichsen R, Baron JA, Hamilton-Dutoit SJ. et al. Increased risk of colorectal cancer development among patients with serrated polyps. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 895-902.e5
12 Reumkens A, Rondagh EJA, Bakker CM. et al. Post-colonoscopy complications: a systematic review, time trends, and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1092-1101
13 Tran AH, Man NgorEW, Wu BU. Surveillance colonoscopy in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1675-1682
14 Atkin W, Brenner A, Martin J. et al. The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations. Health Technol Assess 2017; 21: 1-536
15 Rex DK, Repici A, Gross SA. et al. High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 335-344.e2
16 Greuter MJE, de Klerk CM, Meijer GA. et al. Screening for colorectal cancer with fecal immunochemical testing with and without postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2017; 167: 544-554
17 Joseph GN, Heidarnejad F, Sherer EA. Evaluating the cost-effective use of follow-up colonoscopy based on screening findings and age. Comput Math Methods Med 2019; 2019: 2476565
18 McFerran E, O’Mahony JF, Fallis R. et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of personalized surveillance after colorectal adenomatous polypectomy. Epidemiol Rev 2017; 39: 148-160
19 Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J. et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123: A12-A13
20 Hassan C, Wysocki PT, Fuccio L. et al. Endoscopic surveillance after surgical or endoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESDO) Guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 266-277
21 van Leerdam ME, Roos VH, van Hooft JE. et al. Endoscopic management of Lynch syndrome and of familial risk of colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1082-1093
22 van Leerdam ME, Roos VH, van Hooft JE. et al. Endoscopic management of polyposis syndromes: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 877-895
23 Grade Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490
24 Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775-794
25 Jover R, Dekker E, Schoen RE. WEO Expert Working Group of Surveillance after colonic neoplasm. et al. Colonoscopy quality requisites for selecting surveillance intervals: A World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Recommendation. Dig Endosc 2018; 30: 750-759
26 Kaminski M, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
27 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
28 Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Risk of advanced lesions at first follow-up colonoscopy in high-risk groups as defined by the United Kingdom post-polypectomy surveillance guideline: data from a single U.S. center. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 299-306
29 Vleugels JLA, Hassan C, Senore C. et al. Diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced colon neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 623-634.e3
30 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ. et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: A consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
31 Butterly LF, Nadel MR, Anderson JC. et al. Impact of colonoscopy bowel preparation quality on follow-up interval recommendations for average-risk patients with normal screening colonoscopies: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. J Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 54: 356-364
32 Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P. et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1661-1674.e11
33 Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A. et al. Quantification of adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 396-405
34 Sakata S, Klein K, Stevenson ARL. et al. Measurement bias of polyp size at colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 987-991
35 Plumb AA, Nickerson C, Wooldrage K. et al. Terminal digit preference biases polyp size measurements at endoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, and histopathology. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 899-908
36 Utsumi T, Horimatsu T, Seno H. Measurement bias of colorectal polyp size: Analysis of the Japan Endoscopy Database. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 589
37 Buijs MM, Steele RJC, Buch N. et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of visual estimation of polyp size in large colorectal polyps. Acta Oncol 2019; 58: S37-S41
38 Elwir S, Shaukat A, Shaw M. et al. Variability in, and factors associated with, sizing of polyps by endoscopists at a large community practice. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E742-E745
39 Eichenseer PJ, Dhanekula R, Jakate S. et al. Endoscopic mis-sizing of polyps changes colorectal cancer surveillance recommendations. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56: 315-321
40 Anderson BW, Smyrk TC, Anderson KS. et al. Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 201-208
41 Sakata S, McIvor F, Klein K. et al. Measurement of polyp size at colonoscopy: a proof-of-concept simulation study to address technology bias. Gut 2018; 67: 206-208
42 Hassan C, Repici A, Rex D. Addressing bias in polyp size measurement. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 881-883
43 Sakata S, Grove PM, Stevenson ARL. et al. The impact of three-dimensional imaging on polyp detection during colonoscopy: a proof of concept study. Gut 2016; 65: 730-731
44 Djinbachian R, Dubé A-J, Durand M. et al. Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 673-683
45 van Heijningen E-MB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW. et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584-1592
46 Zorzi M, Senore C, Turrin A. et al. Appropriateness of endoscopic surveillance recommendations in organised colorectal cancer screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2016; 65: 1822-1828
47 Hong S, Suh M, Choi KS. et al. Guideline adherence to colonoscopic surveillance intervals after polypectomy in Korea: results from a nationwide survey. Gut Liver 2018; 12: 426-432
48 Gessl I, Waldmann E, Britto-Arias M. et al. Surveillance colonoscopy in Austria: Are we following the guidelines?. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 119-127
49 Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA. et al. Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 757-766
50 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. et al. International Agency for Research on Cancer. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE151-SE163
51 Murphy CC, Lewis CL, Golin CE. et al. Underuse of surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 633-641
52 Hassan C, Kaminski MF, Repici A. How to ensure patient adherence to colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in your practice. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 252-257
53 Gauci C, Lendzion R, Phan-Thien K-C. et al. Patient compliance with surveillance colonoscopy: patient factors and the use of a graded recall system: Compliance with surveillance colonoscopy. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88: 311-315
54 Vleugels JLA, Hazewinkel Y, Fockens P. et al. Natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a systematic literature review. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1169-1176.e1
55 Cottet V, Jooste V, Fournel I. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study. Gut 2012; 61: 1180-1186
56 Ponugoti PL, Cummings OW, Rex DK. Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 34-37
57 Gupta N, Bansal A, Rao D. et al. Prevalence of advanced histological features in diminutive and small colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1022-1030
58 Turner KO, Genta RM, Sonnenberg A. Lesions of all types exist in colon polyps of all sizes. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113: 303-306
59 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Rickert A. et al. Risk of colorectal cancer after detection and removal of adenomas at colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2969-2976
60 Løberg M, Kalager M, Holme Ø. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 799-807
61 Ren J, Kirkness CS, Kim M. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer by gender after positive colonoscopy: population-based cohort study. Curr Med Res Opin 2016; 32: 1367-1374
62 Dubé C, Yakubu M, McCurdy BR. et al. Risk of advanced adenoma, colorectal cancer, and colorectal cancer mortality in people with low-risk adenomas at baseline colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: 1790-1801
63 Saini SD, Kim HM, Schoenfeld P. Incidence of advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy in patients with a personal history of colon adenomas: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 614-626
64 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, van Leerdam M. et al. Systematic literature review and pooled analyses of risk factors for finding adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 560-574
65 Mahajan D, Downs-Kelly E, Liu X. et al. Reproducibility of the villous component and high-grade dysplasia in colorectal adenomas < 1 cm: implications for endoscopic surveillance. Am J Surg Pathol 2013; 37: 427-433
66 Macaron C, Vu HT, Lopez R. et al. Risk of metachronous polyps in individuals with serrated polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58: 762-768
67 Lee JY, Park HW, Kim M-J. et al. Prediction of the risk of a metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasm using a novel scoring system. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 3016-3025
68 Pereyra L, Zamora R, Gómez EJ. et al. Risk of metachronous advanced neoplastic lesions in patients with sporadic sessile serrated adenomas undergoing colonoscopic surveillance. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 871-878
69 Symonds E, Anwar S, Young G. et al. Sessile serrated polyps with synchronous conventional adenomas increase risk of future advanced neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 1680-1685
70 Cross AJ, Robbins EC, Pack K. et al. Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Gut 2020;
71 Jover R, Bretthauer M, Dekker E. et al. Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 571-578
72 Yoon JY, Kim HT, Hong SP. et al. High-risk metachronous polyps are more frequent in patients with traditional serrated adenomas than in patients with conventional adenomas: a multicenter prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 1087-1093.e3
73 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM. et al. Risk of metachronous high-risk adenomas and large serrated polyps in individuals with serrated polyps on index colonoscopy: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 117-127.e2
74 Schachschal G, Sehner S, Choschzick M. et al. Impact of reassessment of colonic hyperplastic polyps by expert GI pathologists. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016; 31: 675-683
75 IJspeert JEG, Madani A, Overbeek LIH. et al. Implementation of an e-learning module improves consistency in the histopathological diagnosis of sessile serrated lesions within a nationwide population screening programme. Histopathology 2017; 70: 929-937
76 Khalid O, Radaideh S, Cummings OW. et al. Reinterpretation of histology of proximal colon polyps called hyperplastic in 2001. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 3767-3770
77 Abdeljawad K, Vemulapalli KC, Kahi CJ. et al. Sessile serrated polyp prevalence determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate and an experienced pathologist. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 517-524
78 Bleijenberg A, Klotz D, Løberg M. et al. Implications of different guidelines for surveillance after serrated polyp resection in United States of America and Europe. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 750-758
79 Grover S, Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW. et al. Prevalence and phenotypes of APC and MUTYH mutations in patients with multiple colorectal adenomas. JAMA 2012; 308: 485-492
80 Kalady MF, Kravochuck SE, Heald B. et al. Defining the adenoma burden in lynch syndrome. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58: 388-392
81 Stjepanovic N, Moreira L, Carneiro F. et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Hereditary gastrointestinal cancers: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1558-1571
82 Gupta S, Provenzale D, Regenbogen SE. et al. NCCN Guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: colorectal, version 3.2017. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017; 15: 1465-1475
83 Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM. et al. NCCN Guidelines insights: colon cancer, version 2. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018; 16: 359-369
84 Pinsky PF, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL. et al. The yield of surveillance colonoscopy by adenoma history and time to examination. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 86-92
85 Morelli MS, Glowinski EA, Juluri R. et al. Yield of the second surveillance colonoscopy based on the results of the index and first surveillance colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 821-826
86 Bonnington S, Sharp L, Rutter M. Post-polypectomy surveillance in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: multivariate logistic regression of factors influencing advanced adenoma detection at first surveillance. Endoscopy 2019; 51: ePP79
87 Mehta N, Miller J, Feldman M. et al. Findings on serial surveillance colonoscopy in patients with low-risk polyps on initial colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: e46-e50
88 Belderbos TDG, Leenders M, Moons LMG. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
89 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80.e1
90 Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF. et al. Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study. Gut 2015; 64: 57-65
91 Pellise M, Burgess NG, Tutticci N. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for large serrated lesions in comparison with adenomas: a prospective multicentre study of 2000 lesions. Gut 2017; 66: 644-653
92 Tate DJ, Desomer L, Klein A. et al. Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 647-656.e6
93 Komeda Y, Watanabe T, Sakurai T. et al. Risk factors for local recurrence and appropriate surveillance interval after endoscopic resection. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 1502-1512
94 Klein A, Tate DJ, Jayasekeran V. et al. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 604-613.e3
95 Schenck RJ, Jahann DA, Patrie JT. et al. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 4174-4183
96 Shahid MW, Buchner AM, Heckman MG. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow band imaging for small colorectal polyps: a feasibility study. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 231-239
97 Khashab M, Eid E, Rusche M. et al. Incidence and predictors of “late” recurrences after endoscopic piecemeal resection of large sessile adenomas. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 344-349
98 Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ. et al. A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 518-526
99 Kandel P, Brand EC, Pelt J. et al. Endoscopic scar assessment after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars: when is biopsy necessary (EMR Scar Assessment Project for Endoscope (ESCAPE) trial). Gut 2019; 68: 1633-1641
100 Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1155-1179
101 Gupta S, Jacobs ET, Baron JA. et al. Risk stratification of individuals with low-risk colorectal adenomas using clinical characteristics: a pooled analysis. Gut 2017; 66: 446-453
102 Moon CM, Jung S-A, Eun CS. et al. The effect of small or diminutive adenomas at baseline colonoscopy on the risk of developing metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia: KASID multicenter study. Dig Liver Dis 2018; 50: 847-852
103 Baik SJ, Park H, Park JJ. et al. Advanced colonic neoplasia at follow-up colonoscopy according to risk components and adenoma location at index colonoscopy: a retrospective study of 1,974 asymptomatic Koreans. Gut Liver 2017; 11: 667-673
104 Kim HG, Cho Y-S, Cha JM. et al. Risk of metachronous neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy in young patients with colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 666-673
105 Park CH, Kim NH, Park JH. et al. Individualized colorectal cancer screening based on the clinical risk factors: beyond family history of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 128-135
106 Park S-K, Yang H-J, Jung YS. et al. Number of advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy: Important risk factor for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia. Dig Liver Dis 2018; 50: 568-572
107 Kim NH, Jung YS, Lee MY. et al. Risk of developing metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after polypectomy in patients with multiple diminutive or small adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114: 1657-1664
108 Kim NH, Jung YS, Park JH. et al. Association between family history of colorectal cancer and the risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasia following polypectomy in patients aged < 50 years. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34: 383-389
109 Jacobs ET, Gupta S, Baron JA. et al. Family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives and metachronous colorectal adenoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113: 899-905
110 Saftoiu A, Hassan C, Areia M. et al. Role of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the screening of digestive tract cancers in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 293-304
111 Atkin W, Cross AJ, Kralj-Hans I. et al. Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study. Health Technol Assess 2019; 23: 1-84
112 Kim NH, Jung YS, Lim JW. et al. Yield of repeat colonoscopy in asymptomatic individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test and recent colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1037-1043
113 Adelstein B-A, Macaskill P, Turner RM. et al. The value of age and medical history for predicting colorectal cancer and adenomas in people referred for colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 97
114 Fernández-Bañares F, Clèries R, Boadas J. et al. Prediction of advanced colonic neoplasm in symptomatic patients: a scoring system to prioritize colonoscopy (COLONOFIT study). BMC Cancer 2019; 19: 734
115 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide referral for colorectal cancer in primary care. 2017 Accessed: Oct 2 2019: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg30

Zusatzmaterial

Zusatzmaterial