colonoscopy surveillance guidelinesuniverse-syllabi.gi.org/acg2013_52_slides.pdf · colonoscopy...
TRANSCRIPT
3/17/2014
1
Colonoscopy Surveillance Guidelines
David Lieberman MD
Chief, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Oregon Health and Science University
ACG Postgraduate Course October 13, 2013
What about Surveillance?
• Evidence – Patients with neoplasia “have what it takes” to do
it again
– Some low-risk, some high-risk
3/17/2014
2
Why Surveillance?
• Fear
–Missed Lesions
– Interval cancer after complete colonoscopy
GI endoscopist
Interval Cancer: What is the risk?
Cooper et al; Gastroenterol 2010: 138: S24 Singh, Am J Gastroenterol 28 Sept 2010 on line Baxter et al; Gastroenterol 2011; 140: 65-72
Pabby, GIE 2005; 61: 385-91 Alberts; NEJM 2000 342: 1156-62 Robertson; Gastroenterol 2005;129:34-41 Bertagnolli; NEJM 2006;355:873-84 Arber; NEJM 2006; 355:885-95 Baron; Gastroenterol 2006; 131:1674-82 Lieberman; Gastroenterol 2007; 133: 1077-85
After Polypectomy
Incidence: 0.3-0.9% in 3-5 yrs
1.7-2.8 cancers /1000 person yrs
After (-) Colonoscopy
2-9% of ALL cancers
(within 6-36 months)
Arain; Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-95
3/17/2014
3
Interval CRC
?? Biology ??Quality
Interval Cancer: WHY? • New, fast growing lesions – Biology
• 1323 CRC in registry;
– 63 interval CRC* (4.8%)
– 131 matched non-interval CRC
Proximal Colon CIMP MSI
Interval CRC (n=63) 63% 57% 29%
Non-interval CRC (131)
39% 33% 11%
OR for Interval CRC
1.85 (1.01-3.8) 2.41 (1.2-4.9) 2.7 (1.1-6.8)
Arain; Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-95
3/17/2014
4
Interval Cancer
• Molecular analysis
– 62 cancers diagnosed within 5 years after colonoscopy with molecular data
• CIMP (+): OR 2.19 (1.14-4.21)
• MSI-H: OR 2.10 (1.10-4.02)
• Increased methylation level
Nishihara et al; NEJM 2013; 369:1095-1105
Sessile Serrated polyp
Serrated Polyps
• Pathway may account for up to 20% of CRC
• Genetic pathways are partially characterized
Leggett and Whitehall; Gastro 2010;138: 2088-2100
Proximal Normal function:
Induces senesence
CpG island
Methylation: Sessile
Serrated
Polyp Silence MLH1
3/17/2014
5
Interval Cancer: WHY? • New, fast growing lesions
• Incomplete removal (19-27%) – Pabby et al; Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 385-91
Soetikno;JAMA 2008; 299: 1027-35 Farrar; CGH 2006; 4: 1259-64
Chromoendoscopy for flat lesions
Incomplete Removal of Polyps
• Prospective study
– 346 non-pedunculated adenomas removed by 11 Gis
– After “complete” removal, bx obtained on periphery to calculate “incomplete resection rate” (IRR)
IRR Real Rate
All 10.1% ???
5-9mmm 6.8% ???
10-20mm 17.3% ???
Sessile serrated 31.0% ???
Range among endoscopists
6.5-22.7% ???
Pohl; Gastroenterology 2013;
3/17/2014
6
Interval Cancer: WHY? • New, fast growing lesions
• Incomplete removal (19-27%)
• Missed lesions
– Up to 17% of polyps > 1cm are missed !!
– Less protection in proximal colon
Interval Cancer
• 9167 participants from 8 large colonoscopy studies
• Median follow-up of 4 years
• 58 invasive cancers found during surveillance (0.63%)
• 78% were stage I or II
Robertson et al. DDW 2008 Abstract 795
3/17/2014
7
Tadepalli et al; GIE 2011; 74: 1360-8
Serrated Polyps – We miss them !
• N = 158
• Endoscopic Characteristics:
Characteristic %
Mucous cap 63.9%
Rim of debris/bubbles 51.9%
Alteration of contour of fold 37.3%
Interruption of mucosal vascular pattern
32.3%
Tadepalli et al; GIE 2011; 74: 1360-8
Hepatic flexure 1.5 cm -Very flat, red coloration -Slight mucus
3/17/2014
8
Serrated Polyp Detection
• Variation in detection of proximal serrated polyps
Study # endoscopists Rate of detecting >1 proximal serrated polyp
Kahi; CGH 2011; 9: 42
15 1% to 18%
Wijkerslooth DDW 2012
5 6% to 22% Huge Variation !!!
Interval CRC
Biology
+ Quality
3/17/2014
9
Colon Surveillance Utilization Age and Gender
< 50 50-74 >74
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Polyp/CRC Surv
6.5% 8.6% 16.6% 23.7% 28.2% 37.1%
CORI Database 2000-2011 n = 1,348,140
>25% of all colonoscopies for age >55 yrs
Surveillance after polypectomy:
Baseline: Most advanced finding* Recommended Interval
No polyp 10 yrs
Hyperplastic, left-sided 10 yrs
1-2 Tubular Adenomas <10mm 5-10 yrs
Lieberman et al; Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
Low Risk
*Assumes complete exam with adequate prep
3/17/2014
10
No Polyp at Baseline CSP
• Evidence for 10 year interval
– Data demonstrating 10+ year gaps in adenoma development and cancer
– RCT of sigmoidoscopy in UK
– Case-control studies of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy
• Concern: Interval cancer after negative exam
– 2-9% of CRC patients in registries had prior colonoscopy within 3 yrs
• Recommended Interval: 10 years
No polyp at baseline: Risk of Interval Advanced Neoplasia
Study n Age (yrs) Advanced Neoplasia @5 yrs
Lieberman, 2007 291 (USA men) 62 2.4%
Imperiale, 2008 1256 (USA) 56.6 1.3%
Leung, 2009 370 (Chinese) 60.6 1.4%
Chung, 2011 1242 (Korean) 56.7 2.0%
Risk is low
3/17/2014
11
Risk of CRC within 10 yrs after Colonoscopy
Study Country (n) Cancer risk over 10 yrs
Singh JAMA 2006
Manitoba 36,000 with CSP c/w expected rates
SIR 1 yr 0.66 2 yr 0.59 5 yr 0.55 10 yr 0.28
Brenner J Clin Onc 2011
Germany 1945 CRC cases 2399 controls
OR 1-2 yr 0.14 3-4 yr 0.12 5-9 yr 0.26 10-19 yr 0.28
Normal colonoscopy identifies low-risk person
CRC Incidence
Nishihara et al; NEJM 2013; 369:1095-1105
No CSP >15.1 10.1-15.0 10.0-5.1 5.0-3.1 <3.0
Person years
980,154 1668 10,929 54,601 99,783 131,333
CRC cases 1164 3 8 51 70 77
Hazard ratio
0.65 (0.19-2.23)
0.26 (0.12-0.59)
0.52 (0.38-0.70
0.40 (0.31-0.52)
0.35 (0.28-0.45
Years since last negative colonoscopy
Negative colonoscopy associated with reduced risk for 15 years
3/17/2014
12
Overuse of Screening After a Negative Colonoscopy in the Elderly (Medicare)
Goodwin JS et al. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1335-43
(-)Colonoscopy for screening indication
(-) colonoscopy (all indications)
% repeat CSP 50% 30%
4yr 5yr 6yr
Utilization of Colon Surveillance
Schoen et al; Gastroenterol 2010; 138: 73-81
Surveillance in 5 yrs >2 Surveillance in 7 yrs
Advanced Adenoma (n = 1342)
58.4% 33.2%
> 3 non-advanced adenomas (n = 177)
57.5% 26.9%
1-2 non-advanced adenomas (n = 905)
46.7% 18.2%
No adenomas 26.5% 10.4%
Evidence for over-utilization
3/17/2014
13
Surveillance after polypectomy:
Baseline: Most advanced finding* Recommended Interval
No polyp 10 yrs
Hyperplastic, left-sided 10 yrs
1-2 Tubular Adenomas <10mm 5-10 yrs
Lieberman et al; Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
Low Risk
*Assumes complete exam with adequate prep
Tubular adenoma <10mm
• New Evidence
– Low-risk compared to:
• 3 or more
• Advanced histology
– Compared to No polyps at baseline 5-year risk of advanced neoplasia:
Study No polyp 1-2 Tub Ad RR
Lieberman,2007 2.4% 4.6% NS:1.92 (0.83-4.42)
Pinsky, 2008 5.3% 5.3% NS
Chung, 2011 2.0% 2.4% NS:1.14 (0.61-2.17)
3/17/2014
14
Tubular adenoma <10mm
• Recommendation: 5-10 yrs
– Evidence leaning toward longer interval for most
Utilization of Colon Surveillance
Schoen et al; Gastroenterol 2010; 138: 73-81
Surveillance in 5 yrs >2 Surveillance in 7 yrs
Advanced Adenoma (n = 1342)
58.4% 33.2%
> 3 non-advanced adenomas (n = 177)
57.5% 26.9%
1-2 non-advanced adenomas (n = 905)
46.7% 18.2%
No adenomas 26.5% 10.4%
Evidence for both over-utilization and under-utilization
3/17/2014
15
Surveillance after polypectomy:
Baseline: Most advanced finding* Recommended Interval
No polyp 10 yrs
Hyperplastic, left-sided 10 yrs
1-2 Tubular Adenomas <10mm 5-10 yrs
3 or more tubular adenomas 3 yrs
Tubular adenoma >10mm 3 yrs
Villous adenoma (>25% villous) 3 yrs
Adenoma with HGD 3 yrs
>10 adenomas <3 yrs
Piecemeal resection 2-6 months
Cancer 1 year
Lieberman et al; Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
Low Risk
Higher Risk Stronger evidence
*Assumes complete exam with adequate prep
Cancer
• Consensus recommended interval for surveillance: 1 year after cancer resection
3/17/2014
16
Serrated Polyps: Significance?
• At Screening Colonoscopy: Association with synchronous advanced neoplasia at screening colonoscopy
• At Surveillance: May be associated with increased risk of advanced neoplasia in surveillance
Li et al; Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 695-702 Schreiner, Weiss, Lieberman; Gastroenterol 2010; 139: 1497-1502 Hiraoka et al; Gastroenterol 2010; 139: 1503-10
Serrated Polyps (SP): What should we do?
Risk Level Suggested Surveillance
High Hyperplastic polyposis (>5 SSA proximal to sigmoid with 2 >10mm)
Moderate Serrated polyp with dysplasia Serrated polyp >10mm
Low SP without dysplasia in proximal colon
Very low Classic hyperplastic polyps
Terdiman, McQuaid; Gastro 2010; 139: 1444-7
1 year
3 years (similar to HRA)
5 years or more (similar to LRA)
10 years
Lieberman et al; Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
3/17/2014
17
Surveillance Program: What to do after 1st surveillance?
Baseline CSP 1st Surv. Pinsky 2009 PLCO
Laiyema, 2009; PPT
Robertson 2009
HRA* HRA 19.3% 30.6% 18.2%
LRA 6.7% 8.9% 13.6%
No adenoma 5.9% 4.8% 12.3%
LRA HRA 15.6% 6.9% 20.0%
LRA 5.7% 4.7% 9.5%
No adenoma 3.9% 2.8% 4.9%
No Adenoma HRA 11.5%
LRA 4.7%
` No adenoma 3.1%
Advanced Neoplasia at 2nd Surveillance
*High-risk adenoma (HDA): Adenoma >10mm, villous, HGD
Surveillance Program
• Follow-up of patients after they undergo surveillance is uncertain
• Patients with HRA* at any exam are higher risk
Baseline CSP 1st Surveillance Interval for 2nd surveillance (years)
LRA HRA 3
LRA 5
No adenoma 10
HRA HRA 3
LRA 5
No adenoma 5
* adenoma >10mm, villous, HGD
3/17/2014
18
Other surveillance issues
• Poor prep at baseline
– Lebwohl (Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73: 1207-14)
• 24% with suboptimal bowel prep
• Repeat exams: – Any adenoma 42%
– Advance adenoma 27%
– Recommendation: Repeat exam
Other surveillance issues
• Positive interval FOBT or FIT
– Interval test within 5 years of colonoscopy is NOT recommended
– Management decision should be individualized
3/17/2014
19
USA vs UK Guidelines Risk Level Follow-up
Recommendation
USA Lower risk: 1-2 tub adenoma <10mm with LGD
5-10 yrs
Higher risk: 3-10 adenomas or >10mm or Villous/HGD
3 years
Highest risk: >10 adenomas
<3 yrs
UK Low-risk: 1-2 adenomas <10mm
No surveillance or 5 yrs
Villous/HGD Histology not used
Intermediate risk: 3-4 adenomas <10mm or on >10mm
3 yrs
High-risk: >5 small or >3 with one >10mm
1 year
USA vs UK
• NCI-funded analysis of 4 US prospective studies
– Interventional studies (anti-oxidant, Calcium, diet)
– Inclusion: adenoma-bearing patients
– Endpoint: adenoma recurrence at 3 yrs
– Clearing colonoscopy performed at 1 yr to assure all baseline polyps removed
– Era: 1984-1998
Martinez; Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 856-64
3/17/2014
20
USA vs UK
Martinez; Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 856-64
Risk Group n Adv neoplasia @ 1yr
Risk HGD/CRC @ 1 yr
Absolute Risk
USA
Low-risk 1194 (37%) 45 3.8% 3 0.3%
Higher-risk 2028 (62.9%) 227 11.2% 23 1.1%
Highest risk 4 1 0
UK
Low-risk 1460 (45.3%) 64 4.4% 5 0.3%
Intermediate 1375 (42.6%) 136 9.9% 13 0.9%
High-risk 391 (12.1%) 73 18.7% 8 (6 CRC) 2.0% (0.6-3.5)
USA vs UK – Lessons learned
• Likely that all important lesions at one year were missed at baseline – This is the reason for the 1 year exams in these
studies
• Quality of baseline exam is important – If there is any question about quality in patients
with 5 or more adenomas, exam should be repeated
– Further study is needed to determine if repeat exams are needed when high-quality is assured
Martinez; Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 856-64
3/17/2014
21
Polyp Surveillance: Summary
• Emphasis should be on performance of high-quality baseline colonoscopy
• Intervals for surveillance should adhere to evidence-based guidelines – If early surveillance is recommended,
a reason for deviating from the guideline should be documented
• New information on surveillance programs suggest that many patients can have longer intervals after 1st surveillance