Dergiler / Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 4

Yield of screening and diagnostic colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection

Sayfa
234–242
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The adenoma detection rates, polyp detection rates, and the interval cancer rates are the guiding tools that point out the importance and quality of colonoscopy

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Introduction: Colorectal cancer is the third most common disease affecting the global population, with 1.8 million new cases reported per year and a mortality rate of 8%.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The present study aimed to compare the yield of the colonoscopy procedure among ages, genders, reasons for requesting a colonoscopy, presence/absence of family history and presence/absence of polyp/cancer detection history.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The adenoma detection rates, polyp detection rates, and the interval cancer rates are the guiding tools that point out the importance and quality of colonoscopy
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Introduction: Colorectal cancer is the third most common disease affecting the global population, with 1.8 million new cases reported per year and a mortality rate of 8%. Currently, the optimum approach to the diagnosis and follow-up of the disease is colonoscopy. The present study aimed to compare the yield of the colonoscopy procedure among ages, genders, reasons for requesting a colonoscopy, presence/absence of family history and presence/absence of polyp/cancer detection history. Materials and Methods: A retrospective examination was made of patients who were referred to the Endoscopy Unit of the Department of General Surgery of our center and who underwent colonoscopy for diagnostic and screening purposes within a three-year period between June 2016 and May 2019. Results: Of the 2,075 patients included in the study from within the three-year period, 1,181 (57%) were male and the median age was 45 (18–93) years. Colonoscopy was performed for screening purposes on 105 (5%) of the patients, while the remaining 1.970 (95%) patients underwent colonoscopy due to the presence of various symptoms and complaints (bleeding, constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, inflammatory bowel disease, etc.). The total polyp detection rate was 13.8% (287) and the total adenoma detection rate was 9% (188). Of the patients who underwent colonoscopy, five (0.26%) were identified with interval colorectal cancer when the procedure was repeated for various indications. Conclusion: Colonoscopic examination is the optimum approach to the detection, follow-up, and treatment of colorectal cancer or its precursors. The adenoma detection rates, polyp detection rates, and the interval cancer rates are the guiding tools that point out the importance and quality of colonoscopy

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

İFLAZOĞLU, N., MEMİŞOĞLU, E. (2020). Yield of screening and diagnostic colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 4, 234–242. https://ajindex.com/articles/415056

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Thomas JP, Lin YV, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:575–82. [CrossRef] 2. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008;134:1570–95. 3. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, Stillman JS, O’Brien MJ, Levin B, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1872–85. [CrossRef] 4. Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, Schoen RE, Sung JJ, Young GP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 2015;64:1637–49. [CrossRef] 5. Arditi C, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Minoli G, Oertli D, Lacaine F, et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2009;41:209–17. [CrossRef] 6. Gimeno-García AZ, Quintero E. Colonoscopy appropriate ness: Really needed or a waste of time?. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015;7:94–101. [CrossRef] 7. May A, Manner H, Schneider M, Ipsen A, Ell C. Prospective multicenter trial of capsule endoscopy in patients with chronic abdominal pain, diarrhea and other signs and symptoms (CEDAPPlus Study). Endoscopy 2007;39:606–12. [CrossRef] 8. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, Palesch YY, Mauldin PD, Hoffman B, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713–19. [CrossRef] 9. Arditi C, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Burnand B, Eckardt VF, Bytzer P, Agreus L, et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Screening for colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2009;41:200–8. [CrossRef] 10. Appropriate use of gastrointestinal endoscopy. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:831–7. [CrossRef] 11. Froehlich F, Pache I, Burnand B, Vader JP, Fried M, Beglinger C, et al. Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:128–36. [Cr