Premium
Optimization of the surveillance strategy in patients with colorectal adenomas: A combination of clinical parameters and index colonoscopy findings
Author(s) -
Park Chan Hyuk,
Jung Yoon Suk,
Kim Nam Hee,
Park Jung Ho,
Park Dong Il,
Sohn Chong Il
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1111/jgh.15237
Subject(s) - medicine , colonoscopy , hazard ratio , confidence interval , risk assessment , proportional hazards model , adenoma , risk factor , incidence (geometry) , cumulative incidence , colorectal cancer , cohort , cancer , physics , computer security , computer science , optics
Background and Aim In addition to index colonoscopy findings, demographic parameters including age are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia. Here, we aimed to develop a risk scoring model for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) during surveillance using a combination of clinical factors and index colonoscopy findings. Methods Patients who underwent the removal of one or more adenomas and surveillance colonoscopy were included. A risk scoring model for ACRN was developed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Surveillance interval was determined as a time point exceeding 4% of the cumulative ACRN incidence in each risk group. Results Of 9591 participants, 4725 and 4866 were randomly allocated to the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Age, abdominal obesity, advanced adenoma, and ≥ 3 adenomas at index colonoscopy were identified as risk factors for metachronous ACRN. Based on the regression coefficients, point scores were assigned as follows: age, 1 point (per 1 year); abdominal obesity, 10 points; advanced adenoma, 10 points; and ≥ 3 adenomas, 15 points. Patients were classified into high‐risk (≥ 80 points), moderate‐risk (50–79 points), and low‐risk (30–49 points) groups. In the validation cohort, the high‐risk and moderate‐risk groups showed a higher risk of ACRN than the low‐risk group (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 7.11 [4.10–12.32] and 1.58 [1.09–2.30], respectively). Two‐, 4‐, and 5‐year surveillance intervals were recommended for the high‐risk, moderate‐risk, and low‐risk groups, respectively. Conclusions Our proposed model may facilitate effective risk stratification of ACRN during surveillance and the determination of appropriate surveillance intervals.