ArticleGut2025
Colorectal cancer incidence after the first surveillance colonoscopy and the need for ongoing surveillance: a retrospective, cohort analysis.
Article in Gut, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundRecommendations for the first postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy (SC1), based on stratifying postpolypectomy colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, are well established. Limited data inform recommendations for surveillance beyond SC1.
objectiveWe investigated which patient groups need surveillance beyond SC1.
designRetrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at 17 UK hospitals, mostly from 2000 to 2010, and had ≥1 surveillance colonoscopies. Cancer and death data were collected through 2017. We examined patients in groups defined by risk at baseline and SC1, applying risk definitions from the 2020 UK postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: 'low risk, low risk' (LR-LR), 'high risk, low risk' (HR-LR), 'low risk, high risk' (LR-HR) and 'high risk, high risk' (HR-HR). We examined CRC incidence after SC1, censoring at any second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2), and after SC2 through end of follow-up. We compared incidence with general population incidence using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs).
resultsAnalyses included 10 508 patients: LR-LR=6587 (63%), HR-LR=3272 (31%), LR-HR=248 (2%) and HR-HR=401 (4%). Median follow-up from SC1 was 8.0 years and 151 CRCs were diagnosed. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence after SC1 was lower in the LR-LR group (SIR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.67), non-significantly different in the HR-LR (SIR 1.17, 0.85 to 1.58) or LR-HR (SIR 2.51, 0.81 to 5.85) groups, but higher in the HR-HR group (SIR 2.84, 1.30 to 5.39). After SC2, CRC incidence in the HR-HR group was no longer higher than in the general population (SIR 1.86, 0.89 to 3.42).
conclusionPatients with high-risk findings at both baseline and SC1 needed an SC2, while those with low-risk findings at SC1 did not, regardless of their baseline findings.
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.