Surveillance Colonoscopy in Individuals at Risk for Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence-Based Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surveillance colonoscopy plays an important role in the management of asymptomatic patients known to carry and suspected of carrying hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer gene mutations. Although the shortest interval between surveillance examinations may seem to offer the most benefit to patients, excessive use of this procedure may have unwanted consequences. This study was designed to evaluate the evidence and make recommendations regarding the optimal frequency of surveillance colonoscopy and the age at which to initiate surveillance based on the best available evidence. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for all articles assessing surveillance colonoscopy from 1966 to 2004 by using the MESH terms "hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer" and "screening." The evidence was systematically reviewed and a critical appraisal of the evidence was performed. RESULTS: There are no randomized, controlled, clinical trials examining the frequency of surveillance colonoscopy in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Three cohort studies were identified for review. There is one cohort study of good quality that provides evidence that surveillance colonoscopy every three years in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer reduces the risk of developing colorectal cancer and the risk of death. The two remaining cohort studies provide poor evidence on which to make a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence supports surveillance with complete colonoscopy to the cecum every three years in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (B recommendation). There is no evidence to support or refute more frequent screening. Further research is required to examine the potential harms and benefits of more frequent screening. However, given the potential for rapid progression from adenoma to carcinoma and missing lesions at colonoscopy, there is consensus that screening more frequently than every three years is required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".