Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33763746›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Are the current colonoscopy recommendations for interval surveillance in patients with polyps enough? Machine learning-augmented propensity score cohort analysis of 1840 patients.

Sarah Baker, Dominique J Monlezun, Nicole Wieghard, Charles Whitlow, David Margolin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 96% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah BakerDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, LA, USA. sarahbakermd@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3124-3000
Dominique J MonlezunDivision of Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Nicole WieghardDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Charles WhitlowDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, LA, USA.
David MargolinDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Ochsner Medical Center · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColonoscopy remains the gold standard for screening and surveillance of colorectal neoplasms, and is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC)-related mortality. The current interval surveillance recommendations in patients with previous adenomas lack sufficient evidence. The prevalence of subsequent adenomas, and especially high-risk adenomas, during surveillance is not well known.

methodsThe primary outcome of this study was to determine the prevalence of polyps upon surveillance colonoscopy in patients who have a history of adenomas on initial average-risk-screening colonoscopy, but then have a normal initial surveillance (second) colonoscopy between 2003 and 2017. This is the first known retrospective cohort study of adenoma detection rate (ADR) with sub-group analysis of patients with serial surveillance colonoscopies by abnormal and high-risk surveillance findings separately by prior abnormal colonoscopies and correct surveillance strategies based on the recent March 2020 updated guidelines. After ADR calculation, machine learning-augmented propensity score adjusted multivariable regression with augmented inverse-probability weighting propensity (AIPW) score analysis was used to assess the relationship between guideline adherence, as well as abnormal and high-risk surveillance findings.

resultsA total of 1840 patients with pathologically confirmed adenomas or cancer on an initial average-risk-screening (first) colonoscopy met study criteria. 837 (45.5%) had confirmed adenomas on second colonoscopy, and 1003 (54.5%) had normal findings. Of 837 patients with polyps on both first and second colonoscopy, 423 (50.5%) had adenomas on third colonoscopy. Of the 1003 patients without polyps on second colonoscopy, 406 (40.5%) had confirmed adenomas on third colonoscopy. Guideline adherence was low at 9.18%, though was associated in propensity score adjusted multivariable regression with increased odds of an abnormal third (but not high-risk) colonoscopy, with comparable AIPW results.

conclusionThis 14-year study demonstrates the ADR to be > 40% on the third colonoscopy for patients with adenomas on initial screening colonoscopy, who then have a normal second colonoscopy. Through advanced machine learning and propensity score analysis, we showed that correct adherence is associated with higher odds of abnormal, but not high-risk abnormal 3rd colonoscopy, with evidence that high-risk surveillance findings are reduced by providers shortening the time between surveillance colonoscopies in contrast to the guidelines for those for whom there is presumed greater clinical suspicion of eventual cancer. Larger prospective trials are needed to guide optimal surveillance for these patients.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsColonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsCohort StudiesColonoscopyHumansMachine LearningPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesAdenomatous polypsColon and rectal surgeryColonoscopyColon polypsColorectal cancerGastroenterologyPolyp surveillance

Identifiers

PMID33763746
OpenAlexW3138909446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.