A105 ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION (EMR) OF LARGE SESSILE POLYPS: DATA FROM A MULTI-CENTER HEALTH ZONE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background EMR is the standard of care for management of large non-invasive colonic polyps. Current guidelines recommend repeat colonoscopy within 6 months after EMR of large sessile polyps to assess the EMR site for residual adenoma. We reviewed the outcomes and compliance to these guidelines in patients at the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH) and surrounding 7 hospitals. Aims The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a follow up colonoscopy within 180 days. Methods Retrospective data was collected on consecutive patients who had a large polyp resection (size >2cm as documented per endoscopy report) from January 1st, 2014 to January 1st, 2016. Information was collected on patients from UAH as well as seven surrounding hospitals within the Edmonton geographic zone. Data was extracted from electronic health records. Results Of 258 patients identified patients, 250 had complete data. Of these 250 patients, 151 (60.4 %) were male and median age was 67 (IQR 60 - 72). Eighty-two cases (32.8%) were performed at UAH, with 168 cases (67.2%) at other hospitals. Polyps were removed by gastroenterologists (n=215, 86.0%), surgeons (n=26, 10.4%), and others (n=9, 3.6%). Fifty-two patients (20.8%) had no formal follow up on electronic health records, while 198 patients (79.2%) had a repeat colonoscopy. 57 patients (29.1 %) had a repeat colonoscopy within 180 days. The median follow-up time was 224 days (IQR 172–365). Of the 82 cases performed at UAH, 74 (90.2%) had follow up. Out of the 168 cases at the other hospitals, 124 (73.8%) had follow up (p<0.01). Sixteen (21.9%) and 41 (33.3%) cases were followed up within 180days at UAH and other hospitals, respectively (p=0.09). Of the 74 cases with follow up at UAH, 12 (15.7%) had residual tissue confirmed by pathology. Of the 124 cases at other hospitals, 26 (21.0%) had follow up (p=0.41). Median polyp size was 2.5cm (IQR 2.0cm - 3.5cm) Conclusions Only 29.1% of patients with large sessile polyp removal in the Edmonton zone had a repeat colonoscopy within 180 days. Patients with large polypectomy performed at the academic hospital were more likely to be followed up compared to non-academic hospitals. Further validation studies with larger data sets are needed. These findings highlight the need for standardized pathways to appropriately manage and survey large polyps post-EMR. 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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».