Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon logoLink to Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon
. 2019 Jul 30;3(3):128–135. doi: 10.23922/jarc.2018-042

Can surveillance colonoscopy be discontinued in an elderly population with diminutive polyps?

Hidenori Tanaka 1, Shiro Oka 1, Shinji Tanaka 2, Katsuaki Inagaki 1, Yuki Okamoto 1, Kenta Matsumoto 1, Kazuki Boda 1, Ken Yamashita 1, Kyoku Sumimoto 1, Yuki Ninomiya 2, Kazuaki Chayama 1
PMCID: PMC6774739  PMID: 31583328

Abstract

Objectives: Surveillance colonoscopy after endoscopic resection (ER) for adenomatous polyps reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, its significance in the elderly population is uncertain. The study aimed to determine whether surveillance colonoscopy should be discontinued in the elderly population. Methods: We enrolled 105 patients who underwent baseline colonoscopy between January 2004 and December 2009 and were subsequently followed-up over 5 years in our institution. All had diminutive colorectal polyps and were aged <80 years at baseline colonoscopy and ≥80 years at follow-up in May 2018. Patients who had undergone colectomy or who had inflammatory bowel disease, familial adenomatous polyposis, Lynch syndrome, and no diminutive polyps were excluded. The cumulative incidence of the target lesion was evaluated. Histopathological diagnoses included low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and carcinoma. Results: The target lesion was detected in 15% (16/105) of the patients. There was no invasive carcinoma; however, two HGDs were detected. There were three lesions that had increased from previously detected diminutive lesions, all of which were LGDs. There were no target lesions detected after 84 years of age, and the cumulative incidence was 0.20. The cumulative incidence was significantly higher in the group with HGD than in the group with no target lesions at baseline colonoscopy. There was no HGD after age 79 years, and the cumulative incidence was 0.019. Conclusion: Surveillance colonoscopy for patients with diminutive polyps may be discontinued after age 79 years.

Keywords: surveillance colonoscopy, elderly population, discontinuing surveillance, colorectal cancer, diminutive polyp

Introduction

The National Polyp Study Workgroup has reported that endoscopic resection (ER) for adenomatous polyps reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) by 76%-90% and 53%, respectively1,2). Surveillance colonoscopy should be performed until 3 years after ER of newly diagnosed polyps3). Several studies have shown that colonoscopy reduces the incidence of CRC4-9).

Although there is general consensus regarding the utility of colonoscopy, the optimal interval for surveillance colonoscopy after ER for adenomatous polyps and CRC is unclear and varies among regions. In the United States10) and Europe11), the subsequent risk of advanced adenoma and CRC is stratified according to the number, size, and histology of the resected tumor at baseline colonoscopy, and the surveillance interval for each risk is defined in each guideline. In Japan, the decision whether to follow US or European guidelines is uncertain because management for diminutive adenomas has not been established (i.e., whether to resect or to conduct follow-up)12-15). Therefore, in the current Japanese guideline, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended within 3 years after ER16).

The population is aging rapidly, particularly in developed countries, resulting in an increased need for colonoscopy for preventing CRC. However, an increase in the number of colonoscopies causes an increase in medical expenses and shortages in medical resources; colonoscopy itself causes a relatively heavy physical burden in the elderly population. The appropriateness and timing of discontinuing surveillance colonoscopy in the elderly population should be considered in terms of necessity, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Although the US and European guidelines recommend discontinuation of routine surveillance colonoscopy after age 75 years10,11), several studies on the benefits and disadvantages of discontinuing surveillance colonoscopy and the appropriate age to discontinue surveillance have reported conflicting results17-23).

Therefore, we aimed to determine whether surveillance colonoscopy should be discontinued in the elderly with diminutive polyps. By evaluating the incidence of colorectal neoplasia, we determined the cutoff age at which clinicians can discontinue surveillance.

Methods

Patient Enrollment

Of the 1,898 consecutive patients who underwent baseline colonoscopy between January 2004 and December 2009, in whom the target lesions were resected and who were subsequently followed-up over 5 years at Hiroshima University Hospital, those with post-colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, and no diminutive polyps were excluded, and 706 patients with diminutive colorectal polyps were recruited. Thereafter, those aged ≥80 years at baseline colonoscopy and <80 years at follow-up in May 2018 were excluded. Finally, we enrolled 105 patients (aged <80 years at baseline colonoscopy and ≥80 years at follow-up in May 2018). The patient recruitment flowchart is shown in Figure 1. Patients with diminutive (≤5 mm) adenomatous polyps in the colorectum were followed-up with annual surveillance colonoscopy without resection24).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Patient enrollment flowchart.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the study protocol was approved by Hiroshima University's Institutional Review Board.

Colonoscopy

Although annual surveillance colonoscopy after baseline colonoscopy was performed in principle, the surveillance interval was determined according to each individual patient's preferences, comorbidities, and systemic conditions. All patients underwent colonoscopies at least three times during the follow-up period, and each surveillance interval was more than one year.

Colonoscopy was performed with a high-resolution video endoscope with magnification (EC-450ZH, EC-450ZW, or EC-L590ZW, FUJIFILM, Tokyo, Japan; or CF-Q240ZI, CF-H260AZI, PCF-Q260AZI, CF-HQ290I, PCF-H290ZI, or CF-HQ290ZI, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). All colorectal lesions were investigated via magnification with indigo carmine. If the lesion showed irregular pit patterns25,26), further magnification with crystal violet was performed. The size of the lesion was measured using a biopsy forceps or a measuring device. All colonoscopies required intubation to the cecum, performed by endoscopists with an experience of ≥1,000 total colonoscopies.

Evaluation

The target lesion indicated for ER was defined according to the guidelines stipulated by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology16) as follows: adenoma ≥6 mm in size, flat and depressed lesion, and lesion with type V pit pattern regardless of tumor size. Histopathological diagnosis was classified as low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and carcinoma according to the World Health Organization classification system27). HGD corresponds to intramucosal carcinoma according to the criteria in the Japanese Classification of Colorectal, Appendiceal, and Anal Carcinomas28).

Clinicopathological features of the target lesion detected during surveillance colonoscopy (including newly detected lesions and lesions increased in size from previously detected diminutive lesion) and the cumulative incidence of the target lesion as well as their differences between the groups categorized by the lesion at baseline colonoscopy (no target lesion, LGD, and HGD) were evaluated. The cumulative incidences of carcinoma and HGD were also evaluated.

Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The cumulative incidence of the target lesion was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons between the groups were made using the log-rank test. JMP version 14.0 (SAS institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for statistical analysis, and a P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients are shown in Table 1. The mean age at baseline colonoscopy and observation colonoscopy was 74 and 83 years, respectively, and the mean follow-up period was 104 months. There were no patients with carcinoma at baseline colonoscopy. The target lesion was detected in 15% (16/105) of the patients. Table 2 shows the clinicopathological features of the 16 target lesions detected via surveillance colonoscopy. There was no invasive carcinoma, whereas two HGDs were detected within 36 months after the baseline colonoscopy. There were three lesions that increased from previously detected diminutive lesions, all of which were LGDs. There were no other lesions that developed during the subsequent follow-up period after resection of the target lesions detected at surveillance colonoscopy. There was no relationship between the lesions at baseline colonoscopy and the lesions detected at surveillance colonoscopy.

Table 1.

Clinical Characteristics of the Enrolled Patients.

(%)
Variables n = 105
Age at baseline colonoscopy, year, mean ± SD (range) 74 ± 3 (68-79)
Age at observation colonoscopy, year, mean ± SD (range) 83 ± 2 (80-89)
Sex, male 79 (75)
Follow-up period, month, mean ± SD 104 ± 28
Use of low-dose aspirin 18 (17)
Incidence of the target lesion 16 (15)
Histology of the lesion at baseline colonoscopy
No target lesions 80 (76)
LGD 17 (16)
HGD 8 (8)
Open in a new tab

SD, standard deviation; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia

Table 2.

Clinicopathological Features of the Target Lesions Detected via Surveillance Colonoscopy.

No. Detected lesion at surveillance colonoscopy At baseline colonoscopy
Age (year) Sex Size (mm) Location Macroscopic type Histology Increased lesion* Period to detect (month) Subsequent follow-up period (month) No. of lesion** Worst histology
1 75 M 8 A/C 0-Is LGD No 25 76 1 -
2 75 M 6 S/C 0-Is LGD No 21 64 10 LGD
3 76 M 6 D/C 0-Isp LGD No 58 61 3 HGD
4 76 M 10 Rb 0-IIa HGD No 15 138 3 -
5 77 M 6 T/C 0-Is LGD No 70 51 5 HGD
6 78 F 7 T/C 0-Isp LGD No 31 52 1 -
7 78 M 10 S/C 0-Isp LGD Yes 78 38 4 LGD
8 79 M 6 S/C 0-Is LGD No 54 37 5 -
9 79 M 6 A/C 0-Is LGD No 35 63 2 LGD
10 79 M 7 S/C 0-Is HGD No 36 105 3 -
11 80 F 6 S/C 0-Isp LGD Yes 123 28 3 HGD
12 81 M 6 S/C 0-Is LGD No 62 45 3 -
13 82 M 6 S/C 0-Is LGD No 97 28 2 -
14 82 M 6 S/C 0-Is LGD No 51 59 6 LGD
15 83 M 7 T/C 0-Isp LGD Yes 110 22 3 -
16 84 M 12 T/C 0-IIa LGD No 127 11 1 -
Open in a new tab

LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia

* Lesion increased in size compared with previously detected diminutive lesion

** Including resected target lesions and left in situ diminutive polyps

The cumulative incidence of the target lesion is shown in Figure 2. There were no target lesions detected after age 84 years, for a cumulative incidence of 0.20 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12-0.32). Figure 3 shows the cumulative incidence of the target lesion categorized by histology at baseline colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence was significantly higher in the group with HGD than that in the group with no target lesions at baseline colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence of HGD at age 79 years was 0.019 (95% CI, 0.005-0.073), and no HGDs occurred subsequently at follow-up patients at age 80 (n = 103), 82 (n = 61), and 84 (n = 32) years, respectively (Figure 4). There were no adverse events associated with baseline and surveillance colonoscopies.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Cumulative incidence of the target lesion. There was no incidence of the target lesion after age 84 years, and the cumulative incidence was 0.20.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Cumulative incidence of the target lesion categorized by the lesion at baseline colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence was significantly higher in the group with HGD than that in the group with no target lesions at baseline colonoscopy.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Cumulative incidence of HGD. There was no incidence of HGD after age 79 years, and the cumulative incidence was 0.019.

Discussion

This study reports the incidence of target lesions in an elderly population with diminutive polyps during surveillance colonoscopy at a high-volume center. Studies on the diagnostic yield of CRC and necessity of colonoscopy in the elderly population have yielded conflicting results. In a study of previously screened patients aged ≥70 years, Harewood et al. concluded that surveillance colonoscopy remains important in elderly patients because the incident rate of carcinoma increased more sharply with age, whereas that of neoplasia increased slowly17). Stevens et al. also argued against discontinuing screening colonoscopy in the elderly18). Meanwhile, it was reported that the mean extension of life expectancy via screening colonoscopy in patients aged ≥ 80 years was only 15% of the expected gain in younger patients aged 50-54 years, although the prevalence of neoplasia was higher in elderly patients19). There are some studies showing low diagnostic yield of CRC in elderly patients who had undergone screening or surveillance examinations20-23). As for screening colonoscopy, a prospective cohort study has reported the impact of colonoscopy on preventing CRC in those aged 70-79 years who had not undergone colonoscopy in the previous 5 years20). In those aged 70-74 years, the risk of CRC over 8 years was lower in those who underwent colonoscopy group than in those who did not (2.19% vs. 2.62%). By contrast, it was not lower in those aged 75 to 79 years (2.84% vs. 2.97%, respectively). Regarding surveillance colonoscopy, the incidence of CRC in patients aged ≥75 years who underwent surveillance colonoscopy was lower than that in the reference population (aged 50-74 years) (0.24 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.61 per person-years22).

The incidence of adverse events associated with colonoscopy is high in the elderly population20,22,24-30). A meta-analysis showed that the incidence rates of adverse events (per 1,000 colonoscopies) in patients aged ≥65 years were 1.0 for perforation, 6.3 for gastrointestinal bleeding, 19.1 for cardiovascular/pulmonary complications, and 1.0 for mortality29). Particularly, in patients aged ≥80 years, the incidence rates were 1.5 for perforation, 2.4 for gastrointestinal bleeding, 28.9 for cardiovascular/pulmonary complications, and 0.5 for mortality. Given that many studies have also reported that the incidence of these serious adverse events and subsequent hospitalization associated with colonoscopy increased with age and comorbidity20,22,30,31), it is important to consider that the risk may exceed the benefit of colonoscopy in the elderly population. Colonoscopy is not a completely reliable modality because there are some CRCs that are diagnosed within 3 or 5 years after previous colonoscopy without detected cancer, termed post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The rate of PCCRC varies from 2.7% to 12.1% according to reports32-38). PCCRC is thought to have more rapid growing potential than other CRCs8), or they are simply missed in previous colonoscopies39).

The rapid aging of the population and prolonged life expectancy in recent years have led to an increasing number of colonoscopies performed in the elderly population that in turn results in a healthcare burden (increased medical expense and low cost-effectivity). Van Hess et al. evaluated which test should be indicated for preventing CRC at what age from the viewpoint of comorbidity and cost-effectiveness40). They suggested that colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and fecal immunochemical test were cost-effective for unscreened patients without any comorbidities until the age of 83, 84, and 86 years, respectively. Meanwhile, in unscreened elderly with moderate and severe comorbidity, CRC screening was cost-effective up to age 83 and 80 years, respectively.

The latest United States10) and European11) guidelines have included the indication of colonoscopy for elderly population to prevent CRC. In the European guideline11), the recommended cutoff age for discontinuing surveillance is 75 years; this also depends on the patient's preferences and comorbidities. In the United States, the United States Preventive Services Task Force determined that screening should not be continued after age 85 years because the risk could exceed the potential benefit41). For patients aged 75-85 years, they recommend discontinuation of routine screening with consideration of the comorbidities and findings of a prior colonoscopy. The American Cancer Society made almost the same proposal42). Collectively, colonoscopy is infrequently recommended in the elderly population overseas.

In Japan, one of the countries with the longest life expectancies, the decision to follow these guidelines is uncertain. Our study revealed that the cumulative incidence of the target lesion slowly increased with age, and the cumulative incidence at age 84 years was 20%. The cumulative incidence of the target lesion was higher in the group with HGD than that in the group with no target lesions at baseline colonoscopy, which is similar to the reports of previous studies3,43-45). Although our results may be helpful for determining the surveillance interval, it is necessary to consider the progression rate of neoplasia and life expectancy in the elderly population. Because the lead time for progression from LGD to carcinoma is around 10 to 20 years46,47), the possibility that LGD will grow to developed carcinoma and lead to death within the period of life expectancy is considered low. Our study supports this expectation because there were only three lesions that increased from diminutive lesions at baseline colonoscopy during the 78-123 months of follow-up, and their histology was all LGDs.

Despite the fact that the surveillance interval of this study was shorter than those of other studies and there were small differences in age and life expectancy between the cohort in the present study and those in previous studies, the cumulative incidence of CRC in this study was 0%, lower than reported previously (1.0% in patients aged ≥70 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy17), 0.24 per 1,000 person-years in patients aged ≥75 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy22), and 2.19 to 2.84% in patients aged 70-79 years undergoing screening colonoscopy)19). The cumulative incidence of HGD was 1.9%, and no HGDs were found during surveillance colonoscopy after age 79 years. Although the HGDs were detected in a short interval, and they may progress to carcinoma if not resected when detected, the cumulative incidence of CRC was estimated at less than 1.9%. In the present study, although quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate39) were not assessed, all colonoscopies were performed by experienced endoscopists at least three times during the study period with short intervals. High-quality colonoscopy is thought to contribute to the low incidence of target lesions.

Our finding of a low cumulative incidence of target lesions supports the discontinuation of surveillance colonoscopy in patients without any target lesions by age 79 years. Studies on the existence of PCCRC, high incidence of adverse events associated with colonoscopy, and the problem of cost-effectiveness in the elderly population also support this recommendation, despite differences in investigated regions, healthcare systems, and medical levels.

This study has some limitations. First, this was a single-center retrospective study, and the number of patients was relatively small. In addition, patients who were status post-colectomy were excluded because they have a high risk of metachronous colorectal carcinoma. Surveillance for them should be evaluated in another study. Second, patients enrolled in this study were limited to those with diminutive polyps; therefore, the findings on surveillance colonoscopy in this study are not generalizable to the general population. Nevertheless, the incidence of colorectal carcinoma in the general population cannot be higher than that in this study population on the basis of the assumption that those with diminutive polyps are at a potentially higher risk of colorectal carcinoma than are those with no diminutive polyps46,47). Third, as the results were obtained from patients at an academic hospital, the patient characteristics may be different from those of the general population. The patients may have dropped out due to other serious illness. Fourth, the short interval of surveillance colonoscopy may have allowed for the early detection of lesions before they progressed to carcinoma. Finally, other factors related to CRC such as comorbidity were not evaluated. Nevertheless, we showed the low incidence of target lesion via high-quality surveillance colonoscopy.

In conclusion, there was no incidence of carcinoma and HGD after age 79 years, and the cumulative incidence of the target lesion was quite low. Therefore, surveillance colonoscopy for patients with diminutive polyps may be discontinued after aged over 79 years.

Disclaimer

Shinji Tanaka is one of the Associate Editors of Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon and on the journal's Editorial Board. He was not involved in the editorial evaluation or decision to accept this article for publication at all.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec; 329(27): 1977-81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb; 366(8): 687-96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O'Brien MJ, et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med. 1993 Apr; 328(13): 901-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Singh H, Turner D, Xue L, et al. Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies. JAMA. 2006 May; 295(20): 2366-73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jan; 154(1): 22-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Baxter NM, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Jan; 150(1): 1-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010 Oct; 139(4): 1128-37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep; 369(12): 1095-105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut. 2018 Feb; 67(2): 291-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012 Sep; 143(3): 844-57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy. 2012 Sep; 44(Suppl 3): SE151-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fukutomi Y, Moriwaki H, Nagase S, et al. Metachronous colon tumors: risk factors and rationale for the surveillance colonoscopy after initial polypectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2002 Oct; 128(10): 569-74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yamaji Y, Mitsushima T, Ikuma H, et al. Incidence and recurrence rates of colorectal adenomas estimated by annually repeated colonoscopies on asymptomatic Japanese. Gut. 2004 Apr; 53(4): 568-72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Asano M, Matsuda Y, Kawai M, et al. Long-term outcome and surveillance after endoscopic removal for colorectal adenoma: from the viewpoint of the cases with multiple colorectal polyps. Dig Med. 2006 Oct; 43(4): 299-306 (in Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kawamura T, Ueda M, Cho E. Surveillance after colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps. Dig Med. 2006 Oct; 43(4): 307-10 (in Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tanaka S, Saitoh Y, Matsuda T, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps. J Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar; 50(3): 252-60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Harewood GC, Lawlor GO, Larson MV. Incident rates of colonic neoplasia in older patients: when should we stop screening? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Jun; 21(6): 1021-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stevens T, Burke CA. Colonoscopy screening in the elderly: When to stop? Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Aug; 98(8): 1881-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Schembre DB, et al. Screening colonoscopy in very elderly patients: prevalence of neoplasia and estimated impact on life expectancy. JAMA. 2006 May; 295(20): 2357-65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garcia-Albeniz X, Hsu J, Bretthauer M, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer among Medicare beneficiaries aged 70 to 79 years: A prospective observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jan; 166(1): 18-26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Duncan JE, Sweeney WB, Trudel JL, et al. Colonoscopy in the elderly: Low risk, low yield in asymptomatic patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 May; 49(5): 646-51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tran AH, Ngor EWM, Wu BU. Surveillance colonoscopy in elderly patients: A retrospective cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct; 174(10): 1675-82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Isohata N, Shimojima R, Utano K, et al. Colonoscopy in Patients Aged 85 Years or Older: An Observational Study. J Anus Rectum Colon. 2018 Oct; 2(4): 155-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ninomiya Y, Oka S, Tanaka S, et al. Clinical impact of surveillance colonoscopy using magnification without diminutive polyp removal. Digestive Endosc. 2017 Nov; 29(7): 773-81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kudo S, Hirota S, Nakajima T, et al. Colorectal tumours and pit pattern. J Clin Pathol. 1994 Oct; 47(10): 880-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kudo S, Tamura S, Nakajima T, et al. Diagnosis of colorectal tumorous lesions by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Jul; 44(1): 8-14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hamilton SR, Boffetta P, Ilyas M, et al. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2010. Chapter6, Tumours of the colon and rectum; 103-42. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Japanese Classification of Colorectal, Appendiceal, and Anal Carcinomas. 9th ed. Tokyo: Kanehara and Co; 2018. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Day LW, Kwon A, Inadomi JM, et al. Adverse events in older patients undergoing colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Oct; 74(4): 885-96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB, et al. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Jun; 150(12): 849-57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L, et al. Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy: A multicenter study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Dec; 8(2): 166-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy TM, et al. Characteristics of missed or interval colorectal cancer and patient survival: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2014 Apr; 146(4): 950-60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cheung D, Evison F, Patel P, et al. Factors associated with colorectal cancer occurrence after colonoscopy that did not diagnose colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug; 84(2): 287-95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ferrandez A, Navarro M, Diez M, et al. Risk factors for advanced lesions undetected at prior colonoscopy: not always poor preparation. Endoscopy. 2010 Dec; 42(12): 1071-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011 Jan; 140(1): 65-72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cooper GS, Xu F, Barnholtz Sloan JS, et al. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in medicare beneficiaries. Cancer. 2012 Jun; 118(12): 3044-52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Erichsen R, Baron JA, Stoffel EM, et al. Characteristics and survival of interval and sporadic colorectal cancer patients: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug; 108(8): 1332-40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ, et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut. 2014 Jun; 63(6): 957-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 May; 362(19): 1795-803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.van Hees F, Habbema JD, Meester RG, et al. Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Jun; 160(11): 750-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov; 149(9): 627-37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul; 68(4): 250-81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med. 1992 Mar; 326(10): 658-62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Otchy DP, Ransohoff DF, Wolff BG, et al. Metachronous colon cancer in persons who have had a large adenomatous polyp. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996 Mar; 91(3): 448-54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Neugut AI, Jacobson JS, Ahsan H, et al. Incidence and recurrence rates of colorectal adenomas: a prospective study. Gastroenterology. 1995 Feb; 108(2): 402-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Winawer SJ. Natural history of colorectal cancer. Am J Med. 1999 Jan; 106(1A): 3S-6S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology. 2007 Jan; 50(1): 113-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon are provided here courtesy of The Japan Society of Coloproctology

RESOURCES