Endoscopy 2009; 41(3): 209-217
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1119646
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) – Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer

C.  Arditi1 , J.-J.  Gonvers2 , B.  Burnand1 , G.  Minoli3 , D.  Oertli4 , F.  Lacaine5 , R.  W.  Dubois6 , J.-P.  Vader1 , S.  Schusselé Filliettaz1 , I.  Peytremann-Bridevaux1 , V.  Pittet1 , P.  Juillerat2 , F.  Froehlich2,  7 , and the EPAGE II Study Group8
  • 1Healthcare Evaluation Unit, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 2Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 3Gastroenterologist, Como, Italy
  • 4Department of Surgery, University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland
  • 5Service de chirurgie digestive, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France
  • 6Cerner LifeSciences, Beverly Hills, USA
  • 7Department of Gastroenterology, University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland
  • 8The EPAGE II Study Group[*]
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

submitted17 June 2009

accepted after revision5 December 2009

Publikationsdatum:
11. März 2009 (online)

Preview

Background and study aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II.

Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy and after resection of CRC was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions.

Results: Most CRCs arise from adenomatous polyps. The characteristics of removed polyps, especially the distinction between low-risk adenomas (1 or 2, small [< 1 cm], tubular, no high-grade dysplasia) vs. high-risk adenomas (large [≥ 1 cm], multiple [> 3], high-grade dysplasia or villous features), have an impact on advanced adenoma recurrence. Most guidelines recommend a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy for high-risk adenomas and a 5-year colonoscopy for low-risk adenomas. Despite the lack of evidence to support or refute any survival benefit for follow-up colonoscopy after curative-intent CRC resection, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended by most guidelines. The timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy differs. The expert panel considered that 56 % of the clinical indications for colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy were appropriate. For surveillance after CRC resection, it considered colonoscopy appropriate 1 year after resection.

Conclusions: Colonoscopy is recommended as a first-choice procedure for surveillance after polypectomy by all published guidelines and by the EPAGE II criteria. Despite the limitations of the published studies, colonoscopy is also recommended by most of the guidelines and by EPAGE II criteria for surveillance after curative-intent CRC resection.

References

1 See Appendix: The EPAGE II Study Group

F. FroehlichMD 

Rue Achille-Merguin 44
CH-2900 Porrentruy
Switzerland

Fax: +41-32-4662955

eMail: florian.froehlich@bluewin.ch