SNFGE SNFGE
 
Thématique :
- Cancer colorectal (CCR)
Originalité :
Intermédiaire
Solidité :
Très solide
Doit faire évoluer notre pratique :
Dans certains cas
 
 
Nom du veilleur :
Professeur Thomas APARICIO
Coup de coeur :
 
 
Gut
  2015/11  
 
  2015 Oct;64(10):1584-92  
  doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306453  
 
  Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study  
 
  van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW, Goede SL, Dekker E, Lesterhuis W, Ter Borg F, Vecht J, Spoelstra P, Engels L, Bolwerk CJ, Timmer R, Kleibeuker JH, Koornstra JJ, de Koning HJ, Kuipers EJ, van Ballegooijen M  
  http://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2015/01/13/gutjnl-2013-306453.full  
 
 

Objective
To determine adherence to recommended surveillance intervals in clinical practice.

Design
2997 successive patients with a first adenoma diagnosis (57% male, mean age 59 years) from 10 hospitals, who underwent colonoscopy between 1998 and 2002, were identified via Pathologisch Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief: Dutch Pathology Registry. Their medical records were reviewed until 1 December 2008. Time to and findings at first surveillance colonoscopy were assessed. A surveillance colonoscopy occurring within ±3 months of a 1-year recommended interval and ±6 months of a recommended interval of 2 years or longer was considered appropriate. The analysis was stratified by period per change in guideline (before 2002: 2-3 years for patients with 1 adenoma, annually otherwise; in 2002: 6 years for 1-2 adenomas, 3 years otherwise). We also assessed differences in adenoma and colorectal cancer recurrence rates by surveillance timing.

Results
Surveillance was inappropriate in 76% and 89% of patients diagnosed before 2002 and in 2002, respectively. Patients eligible under the pre-2002 guideline mainly received surveillance too late or were absent (57% of cases). For patients eligible under the 2002 guideline surveillance occurred mainly too early (48%). The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance was higher in patients with delayed surveillance compared with those with too early or appropriate timed surveillance (8% vs 4-5%, p<0.01).

Conclusions
There is much room for improving surveillance practice. Less than 25% of patients with adenoma receive appropriate surveillance. Such practice seriously hampers the effectiveness and efficiency of surveillance, as too early surveillance poses a considerable burden on available resources while delayed surveillance is associated with an increased rate of advanced adenoma and especially colorectal cancer.

 
Question posée
 
Les recommandations de surveillance après exérèse de polypes adénomateux coliques sont-elles suivies aux Pays-Bas ?
 
Question posée
 
Non.
 
Commentaires

Des études de ce type seraient certainement utiles en France.

 
www.snfge.org