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.

S3537 The Need for Clear Endoscopic Surveillance Guidelines in Patients With Gardner Syndrome

S1640 The Prevalence of Large Colorectal Polyps Requiring EMR, ESD, EFTR, or Surgery Found During Screening Colonoscopy

Endoscopic screening for identification of signet ring cell gastric cancer foci in carriers of germline pathogenic variants in CDH1

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for giant desmoid tumors of the intra-abdominal cavity in a patient with Gardner syndrome

Two Cases, Too Little, Too Late: Surveillance for Gastric Cancer in Patients with FAP

Endoscopic Surveillance after (Procto)Colectomy with Gastrointestinal Reconstruction in Patients with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP)-Principles, Goals and Practical Aspects Based on 12 Years of Observation

S4973 Fundic Gland Polyposis With Chronic PPI Use: Is Surveillance Warranted?

Osteoma And Desmoid Tumor As First Clinical Sign Of Gardner Syndrome: A Report Of Two Cases.

Appropriate Management of Attenuated Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature

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

Case report: Initial atypical skeletal symptoms and dental anomalies as first signs of Gardner syndrome: the importance of genetic analysis in the early diagnosis

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

Importance of sessile serrated lesions in a patient with familial adenomatous polyposis

Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020

Current Surgical Concepts in Lynch Syndrome and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

S368 Rates of Guideline-Directed, Post-Treatment Surveillance Colonoscopy in Early- and Late-Onset Colorectal Cancer Patients

A Clinicopathologic Evaluation of Incidental Fundic Gland Polyps With Dysplasia: Implications for Clinical Management

A novel APC mutation associated with Gardner syndrome in a Chinese family

Gastrointestinal manifestations in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach (GAPPS): a systematic review with analysis of individual patient data

GASTRIC POLYPOSIS AND RISK OF GASTRIC CANCER IN PATIENTS WITH FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS (FAP)