Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Epidemiologic Reviews Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1093/epirev/mxx002
Ethna McFerran, James F O'Mahony, Richard Fallis, Duncan McVicar, Ann G Zauber, Frank Kee
{"title":"Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.","authors":"Ethna McFerran, James F O'Mahony, Richard Fallis, Duncan McVicar, Ann G Zauber, Frank Kee","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxx002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is 5%, and 5-year survival at early stage is 92%. Individuals with precancerous lesions removed at primary screening are typically recommended surveillance colonoscopy. Because greater benefits are anticipated for those with higher risk of colorectal cancer, scope for risk-specific surveillance recommendations exists. This review assesses published cost-effectiveness estimates of postpolypectomy surveillance to consider the potential for personalized recommendations by risk group. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced neoplasia postpolypectomy for low-risk cases were comparable to those without adenoma, with both rates under the lifetime risk of 5%. This group may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harm and inefficient use of often scarce colonoscopy capacity. Therefore, greater personalization through deintensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial. The potential for noninvasive testing, such as fecal immunochemical tests, combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention may reserve colonoscopy for targeted use in personalized risk-stratified surveillance. This review appraised evidence supporting a program of personalized surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk group and compared the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies. It assessed trade-offs among costs, benefits, and adverse effects that must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalized surveillance.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"39 1","pages":"148-160"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858033/pdf/mxx002.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxx002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is 5%, and 5-year survival at early stage is 92%. Individuals with precancerous lesions removed at primary screening are typically recommended surveillance colonoscopy. Because greater benefits are anticipated for those with higher risk of colorectal cancer, scope for risk-specific surveillance recommendations exists. This review assesses published cost-effectiveness estimates of postpolypectomy surveillance to consider the potential for personalized recommendations by risk group. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced neoplasia postpolypectomy for low-risk cases were comparable to those without adenoma, with both rates under the lifetime risk of 5%. This group may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harm and inefficient use of often scarce colonoscopy capacity. Therefore, greater personalization through deintensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial. The potential for noninvasive testing, such as fecal immunochemical tests, combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention may reserve colonoscopy for targeted use in personalized risk-stratified surveillance. This review appraised evidence supporting a program of personalized surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk group and compared the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies. It assessed trade-offs among costs, benefits, and adverse effects that must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalized surveillance.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估结直肠腺瘤性息肉切除术后个性化监测的有效性和成本效益。
终生罹患大肠癌的风险为 5%,早期患者的 5 年生存率为 92%。对于在初筛中切除了癌前病变的人,通常建议进行结肠镜监测检查。由于预计患结直肠癌风险较高的人群可获得更大的益处,因此存在针对特定风险提出监测建议的空间。本综述评估了已发表的息肉切除术后监测的成本效益估算,以考虑按风险组别提出个性化建议的可能性。对低风险病例切除息肉术后晚期肿瘤发生率的 Meta 分析结果与无腺瘤的病例相当,两者的发生率均低于 5% 的终生风险。这部分患者可能无法从强化监测中获益,因为强化监测可能会造成不必要的伤害,并使稀缺的结肠镜检查能力得不到有效利用。因此,通过针对低风险人群的非强化策略来提高个性化程度可能是有益的。无创检测(如粪便免疫化学检测)与一级预防或化学预防相结合的潜力可为结肠镜检查在个性化风险分级监控中的有针对性使用预留空间。本综述评估了支持根据风险组别对结直肠腺瘤患者进行个性化监测计划的证据,并比较了结肠镜监测与其他预防策略的有效性。它评估了在决定采用或拒绝个性化监测时必须考虑的成本、效益和不良反应之间的权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Reviews
Epidemiologic Reviews 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Reviews is a leading review journal in public health. Published once a year, issues collect review articles on a particular subject. Recent issues have focused on The Obesity Epidemic, Epidemiologic Research on Health Disparities, and Epidemiologic Approaches to Global Health.
期刊最新文献
Risk of new diagnoses and exacerbations of chronic conditions after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review update. Age- and sex-stratified risks of myocarditis and pericarditis attributable to COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reporting of participant race and ethnicity from COVID-19 randomized controlled drug and biologicals trials: a scoping review. Food insecurity during pregnancy and associated perinatal outcomes: a scoping review. Changes to Epidemiologic Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1