Intest Res.
2013 Oct;11(4):276-282. 10.5217/ir.2013.11.4.276.
Clinical Practice of Surveillance Colonoscopy according to the Classification of Colorectal Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Korea: High-grade Dysplasia/Carcinoma In Situ Versus Intramucosal Carcinoma
- Affiliations
-
- 1Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. taeilkim@yuhs.ac
- 2Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- 3Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
- 4Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Woman's University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- 5Department of Internal Medicine, Konyang University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.
- 6Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea.
- 7Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- KMID: 2284915
- DOI: http://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2013.11.4.276
Abstract
- BACKGROUND/AIMS
Recent guidelines strongly recommend that the interval of surveillance colonoscopy be determined according to the risk stratification obtained at index colonoscopy. However, because of the differences in perception of the classification of colorectal intraepithelial neoplasia between Asian and Western countries, there is some confusion about surveillance colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics and the interval of surveillance colonoscopy between patients with high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma in situ and those with intramucosal carcinoma.
METHODS
From January 2003 to June 2010, 727 patients were included from 8 tertiary centers. Four hundred fifteen patients (57.1%) had high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (group A), and 312 (43.9%) had intramucosal carcinoma (group B). Clinicopathological data were reviewed retrospectively.
RESULTS
Group A had a significantly more frequent family history of colorectal cancer (3.1% vs. 0.6%, P<0.001), smaller polyp size (12 mm vs. 15 mm, P=0.001), and more proximal location (31.1% vs. 21.8%, P=0.005) than did group B. Among 727 patients, surveillance colonoscopy was performed within 6 months in 55.8% of patients and within 12 months in 77.8%. Group B had a significantly shorter interval of surveillance colonoscopy than did group A (P<0.001). There was no difference in detection of advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy between the 2 groups (6.6% vs. 5.4%, P=0.638).
CONCLUSIONS
The recommended interval of surveillance colonoscopy is not followed in Korea. More education about post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines is required.
Keyword
- Full Text Links
-
- Actions
-
Cited
- CITED
-
- Close
- Share
-
- Similar articles
-
- Optimal Colonoscopy Surveillance Interval after Polypectomy
- Diagnosis and management of gastric dysplasia
- Expression of Prostatic Carcinoma Oncogene PTI - 1 in Prostatic Carcinoma , Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Using in situ PCR
- The Comparison of Histo-pathologic Findings and Pit Patterns of Colorectal Tumors
- Angiogenesis in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Invasive Cervical Cancer: an Immunohistochemical Study
