Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 31722884
- PMCID: PMC6853024
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6109
Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: To review and summarise the evidence on the prevalence of colorectal adenomas and cancers at a follow-up screening colonoscopy after negative index colonoscopy, stratified by interval between examinations and by sex.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies.
Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Two investigators independently extracted characteristics and results of identified studies and performed standardised quality ratings.
Eligibility criteria: Studies assessing the outcome of a follow-up colonoscopy among participants at average risk for colorectal cancer with a negative previous colonoscopy (no adenomas).
Results: 28 studies were identified, including 22 cohort studies, five cross sectional studies, and one case-control study. Findings for an interval between colonoscopies of one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years were reported by 17, 16, and three studies, respectively. Summary estimates of prevalences of any neoplasm were 20.7% (95% confidence interval 15.8% to 25.5%), 23.0% (18.0% to 28.0%), and 21.9% (14.9% to 29.0%) for one to five, five to 10, and more than 10 years between colonoscopies. Corresponding summary estimates of prevalences of any advanced neoplasm were 2.8% (2.0% to 3.7%), 3.2% (2.2% to 4.1%), and 7.0% (5.3% to 8.7%). Seven studies also reported findings stratified by sex. Summary estimates stratified by interval and sex were consistently higher for men than for women.
Conclusions: Although detection of any neoplasms was observed in more than 20% of participants within five years of a negative screening colonoscopy, detection of advanced neoplasms within 10 years was rare. Our findings suggest that 10 year intervals for colonoscopy screening after a negative colonoscopy, as currently recommended, may be adequate, but more studies are needed to strengthen the empirical basis for pertinent recommendations and to investigate even longer intervals.
Study registration: Prospero CRD42019127842.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: support from the German Research Council and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Figures
Comment in
-
Unacceptable variation in screening colonoscopy.BMJ. 2019 Nov 13;367:l6384. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6384. BMJ. 2019. PMID: 31722874 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Prevalence of Colorectal Neoplasia 10 or More Years After a Negative Screening Colonoscopy in 120 000 Repeated Screening Colonoscopies.JAMA Intern Med. 2023 Mar 1;183(3):183-190. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.6215. JAMA Intern Med. 2023. PMID: 36648785 Free PMC article.
-
Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Health Technol Assess. 2022 May;26(26):1-156. doi: 10.3310/OLUE3796. Health Technol Assess. 2022. PMID: 35635015 Free PMC article.
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 May. Report No.: 20-05271-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 May. Report No.: 20-05271-EF-1. PMID: 34097369 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.BMJ. 2014 Apr 9;348:g2467. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2467. BMJ. 2014. PMID: 24922745 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Potential Impact of Extending Surveillance Intervals for Patients With 1-2 Low-Risk Adenomas.Gastro Hep Adv. 2022 Nov 29;2(3):298-300. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2022.11.011. eCollection 2023. Gastro Hep Adv. 2022. PMID: 39132662 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
-
Reduction in colorectal cancer incidence by screening endoscopy.Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Feb;21(2):125-133. doi: 10.1038/s41575-023-00847-3. Epub 2023 Oct 4. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024. PMID: 37794234 Review.
-
Insights into the quantification and reporting of model-related uncertainty across different disciplines.iScience. 2022 Nov 5;25(12):105512. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105512. eCollection 2022 Dec 22. iScience. 2022. PMID: 36465136 Free PMC article. Review.
-
IGFBP5 is Upregulated and Associated with Poor Prognosis in Colorectal Cancer.Int J Gen Med. 2022 Aug 6;15:6485-6497. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S370576. eCollection 2022. Int J Gen Med. 2022. PMID: 35966504 Free PMC article.
-
Follow-up outcomes in patients with negative initial colon capsule endoscopy findings.World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct 16;13(10):502-509. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v13.i10.502. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021. PMID: 34733410 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical