Abstract:Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic patients can reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. In the United States, colonoscopy has become the most commonly used screening test. Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplasm found during CRC screening. There is evidence that detection and removal of these cancer precursor lesions may prevent many cancers and reduce mortality.1 Howver, patients who have adenomas are at increased risk for eveloping metachronous adenomas or cancer compared with atients without adenomas. There is new evidence that some atients may develop cancer within 3–5 years of colonoscopy nd polypectomy—so-called interval cancers. Ideally, screening and surveillance intervals should be ased on evidence showing that interval examinations preent interval cancers and cancer-related mortality. We have ocused on the interval diagnosis of advanced adenomas as surrogate marker for the more serious end point of cancer ncidence or mortality. In 2006, the United States Multiociety Task Force (MSTF) on CRC issued a guideline on ostpolypectomy surveillance,2 which updated a prior 1997 guideline. A key principle of the 2006 guideline was risk stratification of patients based on the findings at the baseline colonoscopy. The surveillance schema identified 2 major risk groups based on the likelihood of developing advanced neoplasia during surveillance: (1) low-risk adenomas (LRAs), defined as 1–2 tubular adenomas 10 mm, and (2) high-risk adenomas (HRAs), defined as adenoma with villous histology, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 10 mm, or 3 or more denomas. The task force also published recommendations or follow-up after resection of CRC.3 More recently, the British Society of Gastroenterology updated their 2002 surveillance guideline in 2010.4 Their risk stratification differs from the US guideline, dividing patients into 3 groups: low risk (1–2 adenomas 10 mm), intermediate risk (3–4 small adenomas or one 10 mm), nd high risk ( 5 small adenomas or 3 with at least one 10 mm). They recommend that the high-risk group unergo surveillance at 1 year because of concerns about issed lesions at baseline. US guidelines place emphasis on erforming a high-quality baseline examination. In 2008, the STF published screening guidelines for CRC, which inluded recommendations for the interval for repeat colonocopy after negative findings on baseline examination.5 New issues have emerged since the 2006 guideline, including risk of interval CRC, proximal CRC, and the role of serrated polyps in colon carcinogenesis. New evidence suggests that adherence to prior guidelines is poor. The task force now issues an updated set of surveillance recommendations. During the past 6 years, new evidence has emerged that endorses and strengthens the 2006 recommendations. We believe that a stronger evidence base will improve adherence to the guidelines. The 2012 guidelines are summarized in Table 1 and are based on risk stratification principles used in the 2006 guideline. The ensuing discussion reviews the new evidence that supports these guidelines. This guideline does not address surveillance after colonoscopic or surgical resection of a malignant polyp.

Distal colonic neoplasms predict proximal neoplasia in average‐risk, asymptomatic subjects

Findings in the distal colorectum are not associated with proximal advanced serrated lesions

Advanced proximal neoplasia of the colon in average-risk adults

Association Between Distal Hyperplastic Polyps and Proximal Neoplastic Lesions: A Prospective Study among 5,613 Subjects

Identification of Subjects at Risk of Proximal Advanced Neoplasia for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Flexible sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: implications of different colonoscopy referral strategies

Association between baseline hyperplastic polyps and metachronous serrated lesions

Association between serrated polyps and the risk of synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals

Neoplasia at 10-year follow-up screening colonoscopy in a private U.S. practice: comparison of yield to first-time examinations

Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Removal of Conventional Adenomas and Serrated Polyps

Patients with small and diminutive proximal hyperplastic polyps have higher rates of synchronous advanced neoplasia compared with patients without serrated lesions

Serrated polyps and the risk of synchronous colorectal advanced neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Risk of proximal colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic adults older than 50 years found to have distal hyperplastic polyps on routine colorectal cancer screening

Evaluation of a risk index for advanced proximal neoplasia of the colon

Findings in the distal and proximal colon in colonoscopy screening after positive FIT and related pre-procedure factors

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

Risk factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia and colorectal cancer detected at surveillance: a nationwide study in the modern era

Screening Implications for Distribution of Colorectal Cancer Subsite by Age and Role of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy

Patient- and procedure-related factors affecting proximal and distal detection rates for polyps and adenomas: results from 1603 screening colonoscopies

A Validated Scoring System to Predict Proximal Neoplasia for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.