A167 MANAGEMENT OF LARGE COLORECTAL POLYPS IN NOVA SCOTIA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the third highest cancer incidence for males and females in Canada1. CRC rates are decreasing, likely due to implementation of CRC screening programs and removal of precancerous polyps. In Nova Scotia, management of large (> 2 cm) polyps is varied. Some patients are referred for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), while others referred for surgical resection. EMR is effective2 and associated with less morbidity and mortality compared to surgery3. Furthermore, EMR is less expensive than surgery and requires less resources when performed as a day procedure. Management of these polyps are unknown in Canada and are potentially changing with gathering evidence on the safety and effectiveness of EMR. North American and European guidelines recommend EMR for non-invasive colonic polyps as first line management. Aims This projects aim is to determine how large polyps are being treated in a group of FIT positive patients from Nova Scotia. Methods This is a retrospective observational study. The Nova Scotia Colon Cancer screening database was searched for FIT positive patients in 2017. Patients found to have > 2 cm colonic polyps were included. Malignant polyps were excluded. Electronic charts were reviewed to determine method of polyp removal. Endoscopic and histologic polyp information was obtained. Results 196 patients had at least one polyp > 2 cm. Within the central health zone where pathology results were available 78 patients had > 2cm polyps. 13 were excluded for malignancy, one lost to follow up and one patient was miscoded. In total 63 patients were included, 8 of which underwent a surgical resection. Of these surgically resected polyps the average size was 4 cm and 3 cm for the EMR group. The average time to removal was 3 months in the surgical group and one month in the EMR group. The average age was 68 years in the surgical group and 67 years in the EMR group. The endoscopists referring for surgery were 75% surgeon and 25% GI and the endoscopists performing EMR were 45% surgeon and 55% GI. 1 of 8 (12.5%) patients experienced complications (anastomotic leak) in the surgical group and 2 of 56 (3.6%) patients experienced post polypectomy bleeding in the EMR group. Conclusions In this study 12.5% of large nonmalignant polyps found in a group of FIT positive patients from Nova Scotia were removed surgically via resection. Polyps were on average larger by 1 cm in the surgical group and patients experienced a higher rate of complication. This study highlights the need for a structured system of referral and assessment for endoscopic removal of advanced polyps by expert endoscopists, to reduce the number of surgical resections. Additional investigation of additional years, and health zones outside the tertiary central health zone is ongoing. This will help provide more validity to our current data, and allow comparison of academic vs community management of large polyps. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».