Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients with Malignant Pedunculated Colon Polyps after Colonoscopic Polypectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previously published studies have suggested that patients with resected colon cancer have an increased risk for early metachronous colon cancer. Current screening guidelines recommend intense surveillance by colonoscopy for the initial five years after the initial colon cancer has been resected. Information regarding endoscopically removed malignant polyps is limited. METHODS: In the present study, 25 consecutive patients (14 male, 11 female) with malignant pedunculated colon polyps treated with snare cautery polypectomy were followed for more than one decade up to 20 years. Five patients required an additional resection to ensure that removal of the original cancer was complete. Annual colonoscopies were planned for five years. If an adenoma was detected in the fifth year, colonoscopy was performed annually until no adenomas were detected. Otherwise, colonoscopy was planned every three years after five years. RESULTS: In the present study, there was no mortality from colon cancer and no patient developed either recurrent colon cancer or an early metachronous colon cancer during the initial five-year period of surveillance. Two patients (one male, one female) ultimately developed late cecal cancers almost one decade after the original colon cancers were resected. One had an early stage cancer that was resected, while the other had an infiltrating mucinous carcinoma complicating a small tubulovillous adenoma with extension to a single lymph node. After surgical removal and adjuvant chemotherapy, no further neoplastic disease has been detected. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients with malignant pedunculated polyps do extremely well if appropriately managed at the time of the initial polypectomy. Short-term outcomes after removal of a malignant polyp(s) appear to be similar to those with a nonmalignant polyp. However, late metachronous colon cancer may still occur. Long-term follow-up should be considered in each patient, assuming reasonable life expectancy, because risk of additional adenomas and metachronous colon cancer persists even after the initial five years of currently recommended surveillance. Patients with resected malignant polyps may represent a special patient subgroup that requires surveillance for more extended periods than current guidelines have recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".