Article    Table of Contents                    Full Text of this article Free  Services    Send comment/rapid response letter    Notify a friend about this article    Alert me when this article is cited    Add to Personal Archive    Download to Citation Manager    ACP Search                            Get Permissions  Google Scholar    Search for Related Content  PubMed Articles in PubMed by Author:    Bond, J. H.    Related Articles in PubMed    PubMed Citation    PubMed

POSITION PAPER

Polyp Guideline: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Surveillance for Patients with Nonfamilial Colorectal Polyps*

John H. Bond

15 October 1993 | Volume 119 Issue 8 | Pages 836-843

Objective: To outline the preferable approach to the management of patients with nonfamilial colorectal polyps.

Data Sources: The human subject English language literature for the past 15 years, searched using MEDLINE and the terms "polyp-," "adenoma-," and "polypectomy-colorectal".

Study Selection: The titles and abstracts of all pertinent articles were reviewed. All randomized controlled trials and large case–control and cohort studies related to colorectal polyps were reviewed in depth.

Data Synthesis: Evidence was evaluated along a hierarchy with randomized controlled trials receiving the greatest weight. Conclusions and recommendations were reviewed by a large group of experts in gastroenterology, radiology, and pathology and were circulated for comment to primary care medical societies.

Conclusions: Most patients with polyps should undergo colonoscopy to excise the polyp and search for synchronous neoplasms. Small polyps (<0.5 cm) require individualization. A hyperplastic polyp found during proctosigmoidoscopy is not an indication for colonoscopy. Large sessile polyps require careful follow-up to ensure complete resection. The need for further treatment of a resected polyp with invasive carcinoma depends on several well-defined clinical and pathologic criteria. Follow-up surveillance after polypectomy should be tailored to the individual risk assessment for each patient. Initial follow-up should be performed at 3 years for most postpolypectomy patients. After one negative result of a 3-year examination, the interval can be increased to 5 years. Patients with one small tubular adenoma do not have an increased risk for cancer, and therefore follow-up surveillance may not be indicated. Adoption of these recommendations should substantially reduce the cost of postpolypectomy surveillance and of screening for colorectal cancer.

* This guideline has been officially endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American Gastroenterological Association. It is an official statement of the American College of Gastroenterology. For a list of the members of the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology, see end of text.

Author and Article Information

For the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Requests for Reprints: American College of Gastroenterology, 4900 B South 31st Street, Arlington, VA 22206-1656.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N Arber, S Kuwada, M Leshno, R Sjodahl, R Hultcrantz, D Rex, and for the Exisulind Study Group Sporadic adenomatous polyp regression with exisulind is effective but toxic: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, dose-response study Gut, March 1, 2006; 55(3): 367 - 373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Mysliwiec, M. L. Brown, C. N. Klabunde, and D. F. Ransohoff Are Physicians Doing Too Much Colonoscopy? A National Survey of Colorectal Surveillance after Polypectomy Ann Intern Med, August 17, 2004; 141(4): 264 - 271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Reid, J. R. Marshall, D. Roe, M. Lebowitz, D. Alberts, A. K. Battacharyya, and M. E. Martinez Smoking Exposure as a Risk Factor for Prevalent and Recurrent Colorectal Adenomas Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2003; 12(10): 1006 - 1011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. M. Morimoto, P. A. Newcomb, C. M. Ulrich, R. M. Bostick, C. J. Lais, and J. D. Potter Risk Factors for Hyperplastic and Adenomatous Polyps: Evidence for Malignant Potential? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2002; 11(10): 1012 - 1018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Smith-Warner, P. J. Elmer, L. Fosdick, B. Randall, R. M. Bostick, G. Grandits, P. Grambsch, T. A. Louis, J. R. Wood, and J. D. Potter Fruits, Vegetables, and Adenomatous Polyps : The Minnesota Cancer Prevention Research Unit Case-Control Study Am. J. Epidemiol., June 15, 2002; 155(12): 1104 - 1113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. F. Imperiale, D. R. Wagner, C. Y. Lin, G. N. Larkin, J. D. Rogge, and D. F. Ransohoff Risk of Advanced Proximal Neoplasms in Asymptomatic Adults According to the Distal Colorectal Findings N. Engl. J. Med., July 20, 2000; 343(3): 169 - 174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Netzer, C Forster, R Biral, C Ruchti, J Neuweiler, E Stauffer, R Schonegg, C Maurer, J Husler, F Halter, et al. Risk factor assessment of endoscopically removed malignant colorectal polyps Gut, November 1, 1998; 43(5): 669 - 674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. E. Read, J. D. Read, and L. F. Butterly Importance of Adenomas 5 mm or Less in Diameter That Are Detected by Sigmoidoscopy N. Engl. J. Med., January 2, 1997; 336(1): 8 - 12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. Winawer, A. G. Zauber, H. Gerdes, M. J. O'Brien, L. S. Gottlieb, S. S. Sternberg, J. H. Bond, J. D. Waye, M. Schapiro, J. F. Panish, et al. Risk of Colorectal Cancer in the Families of Patients with Adenomatous Polyps N. Engl. J. Med., January 11, 1996; 334(2): 82 - 87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]