ReviewDigestion2025
Surveillance after Endoscopic Resection for Colorectal Tumors: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Digestion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surveillance Outcomes in an Australian Cohort Undergoing Piecemeal Polypectomy for Conventional Adenomas and Serrated Lesions.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Observational
- Chinese clinical practice guidelines for super minimally invasive surgery of digestive tract tumors.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe goal of surveillance after the endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors is to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Considering the effective use of the limited endoscopic capacity and the cost of surveillance, it is desirable to develop a surveillance program that is as minimal as possible. In Europe (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE]) and the USA (Multi-Society Task Force [MSTF]), after the results of the National Polyp Study (NPS) were established, guidelines were developed that stratified risk based on initial endoscopy, and surveillance programs for each risk group were proposed. More than 10 years later, the "colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines" were developed with the basic principle of "aiming for zero CRC deaths during surveillance, bowel preservation, and emphasis on patient quality of life" as the guideline principles in Japan. SUMMARY: Randomized controlled trials to evaluate the appropriate surveillance intervals after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors, the NPS, the Nottingham Study, and the Japan Polyp Study (JPS), are summarized. The ESGE, USMSTF, and Japanese guidelines compared low-risk adenoma, high-risk adenoma, advanced neoplasia, piecemeal resection, and serrated lesions by category. KEY MESSAGES: Surveillance guidelines based on risk stratification were developed in Japan. Guidelines are meaningful only when they are effectively utilized in clinical practice. They must also be revised based on new evidence. It is hoped that new knowledge will be accumulated, especially in Japan, on topics that are currently lacking.
backgroundThe goal of surveillance after the endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors is to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Considering the effective use of the limited endoscopic capacity and the cost of surveillance, it is desirable to develop a surveillance program that is as minimal as possible. In Europe (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE]) and the USA (Multi-Society Task Force [MSTF]), after the results of the National Polyp Study (NPS) were established, guidelines were developed that stratified risk based on initial endoscopy, and surveillance programs for each risk group were proposed. More than 10 years later, the "colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines" were developed with the basic principle of "aiming for zero CRC deaths during surveillance, bowel preservation, and emphasis on patient quality of life" as the guideline principles in Japan. SUMMARY: Randomized controlled trials to evaluate the appropriate surveillance intervals after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors, the NPS, the Nottingham Study, and the Japan Polyp Study (JPS), are summarized. The ESGE, USMSTF, and Japanese guidelines compared low-risk adenoma, high-risk adenoma, advanced neoplasia, piecemeal resection, and serrated lesions by category. KEY MESSAGES: Surveillance guidelines based on risk stratification were developed in Japan. Guidelines are meaningful only when they are effectively utilized in clinical practice. They must also be revised based on new evidence. It is hoped that new knowledge will be accumulated, especially in Japan, on topics that are currently lacking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.