PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John H Bond

Publications and source records attributed to John H Bond.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Should patients with anemia and low normal or normal serum ferritin undergo colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND: Patients with unexplained iron deficiency anemia have a greater prevalence of colonic neoplasia, and should be evaluated for a colonoscopy. The approach to patients with anemia without iron deficiency remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of colonic neoplasia in anemic patients with normal ferritin (>50 ng/mL), to those with ferritin < or =50 ng/mL, and nonanemic individuals. METHODS: Patients referred for colonoscopy for anemia evaluation were stratified into 3 groups: ferritin < or =50 ng/mL, 51-100 ng/mL, and >100 ng/mL. We compared these groups to each other, and to asymptomatic nonanemic individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. The prevalence of advanced colonic neoplasia was determined for each group using existing records. RESULTS: During the study period, 414 patients who underwent colonoscopy for anemia evaluation and 323 nonanemic individuals who underwent colonoscopy for cancer screening met inclusion criteria. Study subjects were mostly men. The prevalence of advanced colonic neoplasia in subjects with ferritin 51-100 ng/mL was 7.2% (95% CI 2.4-17.9%), similar to 7.9% (95% CI 5.1-11.9%) in those with ferritin < or =50 ng/mL. The incidence of advanced colonic neoplasia in subjects with ferritin >100 ng/mL was 1.7% (95% CI 0.1-6.6%), similar to 1.2% (95% CI 0.4-3.3%) in the asymptomatic nonanemic group. After adjusting for age, patients with ferritin < or =50 ng/mL and 51-100 ng/mL were almost 5 times more likely to harbor advanced colonic neoplasia than the other groups. The addition of other laboratory parameters did not improve the predictive value of ferritin. CONCLUSION: A ferritin cutoff of 100 ng/mL can be used to determine the need for colonoscopy in men with anemia.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The incidence of colorectal cancer in patients undergoing colonoscopic surveillance is higher than previously thought. A better understanding of interval cancers is needed to improve surveillance strategies. The objectives of this study were to determine whether interval colorectal cancers were associated with an inadequate earlier colonoscopy, incomplete polypectomy, or aggressive biologic behavior. METHODS: We searched our institution's cancer registry. Interval cancers were defined as colorectal cancers that developed within 5 years of a complete colonoscopy. These were frequency matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients with sporadic cancers, which were defined as colorectal cancers diagnosed on a patient's first recorded colonoscopy. Patient, colonoscopy, and tumor characteristics of interval and sporadic cancers were compared. RESULTS: Of the 830 colorectal cancers diagnosed during the study period, 45 patients developed an interval cancer (5.4%; 95% confidence interval, 4.1%-7.2%). Twenty-seven percent of interval cancers developed at previous polypectomy segments, and location of polypectomy segments was predictive of the location of subsequent interval cancers. Interval cancers were 3 times more likely to occur in the right colon and were smaller in size than sporadic cancers. Quality of bowel preparation, individual endoscopist, endoscopist experience, and trainee involvement were not associated with interval cancers. No difference in TNM stage at diagnosis, histologic type or grade, carcinoembryonic antigen level, or 5-year survival was found between interval and sporadic cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete polypectomy might play an important role in the development of interval colorectal cancer. No association between other colonoscopy-related factors or tumor characteristics and interval cancers was found.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

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

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings discovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which showed clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance take place 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003 these guidelines were updated and colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, stratification at baseline into low risk and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have shown that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was designed to address all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be stratified more definitely at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower risk or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either 3 or more adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or an adenoma 1 cm or larger in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have 1 or 2 small (<1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up evaluation in 5-10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up evaluation, as for average-risk people. There have been recent studies that have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase the use of the recommendations by endoscopists. The adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed2006

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

Patients with resected colorectal cancer are at risk for recurrent cancer and metachronous neoplasms in the colon. This joint update of guidelines by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer addresses only the use of endoscopy in the surveillance of these patients. Patients with endoscopically resected Stage I colorectal cancer, surgically resected Stages II and III cancers, and Stage IV cancer resected for cure (isolated hepatic or pulmonary metastasis) are candidates for endoscopic surveillance. The colorectum should be carefully cleared of synchronous neoplasia in the perioperative period. In nonobstructed colons, colonoscopy should be performed preoperatively. In obstructed colons, double-contrast barium enema or computed tomography colonography should be performed preoperatively, and colonoscopy should be performed 3 to 6 months after surgery. These steps complete the process of clearing synchronous disease. After clearing for synchronous disease, another colonoscopy should be performed in 1 year to look for metachronous lesions. This recommendation is based on reports of a high incidence of apparently metachronous second cancers in the first 2 years after resection. If the examination at 1 year is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 3 years. If that examination is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 5 years. Shorter intervals may be indicated by associated adenoma findings (see "Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society"). Shorter intervals also are indicated if the patient's age, family history, or tumor testing indicate definite or probable hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Patients undergoing low anterior resection of rectal cancer generally have higher rates of local cancer recurrence compared with those with colon cancer. Although effectiveness is not proven, performance of endoscopic ultrasound or flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3- to 6-month intervals for the first 2 years after resection can be considered for the purpose of detecting a surgically curable recurrence of the original rectal cancer.

Colectomy↗
PubMed2006

Microsatellite instability in interval colon cancers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colon cancers that develop after a complete colonoscopy may be the result of "failure of colonoscopy" or rapid tumor growth. Tumors that develop via the mismatch repair gene pathway demonstrate rapid tumor growth. The aim of this study was to determine if interval colon cancers were more likely than noninterval cancers to result from the loss of function of mismatch repair genes and hence demonstrate microsatellite instability (MSI). METHODS: We searched our institution's cancer registry for interval cancers, defined as colon cancers that developed within 5 years of a complete colonoscopy. These were frequency matched in a 1:2 ratio by age and sex to patients with noninterval cancers (defined as colon cancers diagnosed on a patient's first recorded colonoscopy). Archived cancer specimens for all subjects were retrieved and tested for MSI. RESULTS: Of the 993 colon cancers diagnosed during the study period, 51 (5.1%) were identified as an interval cancer, and 112 subjects with noninterval cancer served as a comparison group. Study subjects were almost all men. MSI was found in 30.4% of interval cancers compared with 10.3% of noninterval cancers (P = .003). After adjusting for age, interval cancers were 3.7 times more likely to show MSI than noninterval cancers (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.1). This association was strongest for tumors located in the distal colon (odds ratio, 17.5; P = .008). No difference in TNM stage at diagnosis, histologic type or grade, or 5-year survival was found between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Interval colon cancers were almost 4 times as likely as noninterval colon cancers to be associated with mismatch repair gene dysfunction.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

The case for direct colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

Recent large series of direct colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer increase our understanding of the advantages of this approach, and have indirectly confirmed efficacy. When performed by well-trained, experienced endoscopists, colonoscopy screening is successful and safe. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia is low under the age of 50 yr but increases substantially with each decade of life thereafter at least until the age of 80 yr. Most detected cancers are at an early, curable stage. A substantial number of proximal advanced neoplasia are detected that would be missed by screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Widespread population-based colonoscopy screening would markedly decrease the incidence and mortality of this major malignancy. Issues of compliance and capacity related to direct colonoscopy have not yet been adequately addressed.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopic polypectomy is considered effective for preventing colorectal cancer (CRC), but the incidence of cancer in patients under colonoscopic surveillance has rarely been investigated. We determined the incidence of CRC in patients under colonoscopic surveillance and examined the circumstances and risk factors for CRC and adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. METHODS: Patients were drawn from 3 adenoma chemoprevention trials. All underwent baseline colonoscopy with removal of at least one adenoma and were deemed free of remaining lesions. We identified patients subsequently diagnosed with invasive cancer or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. The timing, location, and outcome of all cases of cancer and high-grade dysplasia identified are described and risks associated with their development explored. RESULTS: CRC was diagnosed in 19 of the 2915 patients over a mean follow-up of 3.7 years (incidence, 1.74 cancers/1000 person-years). The cancers were located in all regions of the colon; 10 were at or proximal to the hepatic flexure. Although most of the cancers (84%) were of early stage, 2 participants died of CRC. Seven patients were diagnosed with adenoma with high-grade dysplasia during follow-up. Older patients and those with a history of more adenomas were at higher risk of being diagnosed with invasive cancer or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: CRC is diagnosed in a clinically important proportion of patients following complete colonoscopy and polypectomy. More precise and representative estimates of CRC incidence and death among patients undergoing surveillance examinations are needed.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2004

Flat adenomas in the National Polyp Study: is there increased risk for high-grade dysplasia initially or during surveillance?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The flat adenoma may be a more aggressive pathway in colorectal carcinogenesis. Sessile adenomas from the National Polyp Study cohort were reclassified histopathologically as flat or polypoid and compared with initial and surveillance pathology. METHODS: A total of 933 sessile adenomas detected during 1980-1990 were reclassified as follows: (1) adenoma thickness (AT): < or =1.3 mm, and (2) adenoma ratio (AR): adenoma thickness <2x normal mucosa thickness. Logistic regression was used to assess whether flat adenomas had an effect on risk for high-grade dysplasia initially, and a Cox proportional hazards model assessed the risk for advanced adenomas at surveillance. RESULTS: The analysis encompassed 8401 person-years of follow-up evaluation. AT and AR measures of adenoma flatness were 95% concordant. By the AT measure, flat adenomas (n = 474) represented 27% of all baseline adenomas. Flat adenomas were found to be no more likely to exhibit high-grade dysplasia than sessile (polypoid) or pedunculated adenomas, the odds ratio for high-grade dysplasia was 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-5.47; P = 0.23) for sessile (polypoid) vs. flat adenomas and 1.78 (95% CI, 0.63-5.02; P = 0.28) for pedunculated vs. flat adenomas adjusted for size, villous component, and location, and corrected for correlation of risk within an individual patient. Patients with flat adenomas at initial colonoscopy were not at greater risk for advanced adenomas at surveillance compared with those with polypoid adenomas only, the odds ratio was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.4-1.42; P = .39), adjusted for multiplicity, age, and family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Flat adenomas identified in the National Polyp Study cohort at baseline were not associated with a higher risk for high-grade dysplasia initially, or for advanced adenomas at surveillance.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2003

A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory and epidemiologic data suggest that aspirin has an antineoplastic effect in the large bowel. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial of aspirin as a chemopreventive agent against colorectal adenomas. We randomly assigned 1121 patients with a recent history of histologically documented adenomas to receive placebo (372 patients), 81 mg of aspirin (377 patients), or 325 mg of aspirin (372 patients) daily. According to the protocol, follow-up colonoscopy was to be performed approximately three years after the qualifying endoscopy. We compared the groups with respect to the risk of one or more neoplasms (adenomas or colorectal cancer) at least one year after randomization using generalized linear models to compute risk ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals. RESULTS: Reported adherence to study medications and avoidance of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were excellent. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed at least one year after randomization in 1084 patients (97 percent). The incidence of one or more adenomas was 47 percent in the placebo group, 38 percent in the group given 81 mg of aspirin per day, and 45 percent in the group given 325 mg of aspirin per day (global P=0.04). Unadjusted relative risks of any adenoma (as compared with the placebo group) were 0.81 in the 81-mg group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.96) and 0.96 in the 325-mg group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.13). For advanced neoplasms (adenomas measuring at least 1 cm in diameter or with tubulovillous or villous features, severe dysplasia, or invasive cancer), the respective relative risks were 0.59 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.92) and 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.55 to 1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin has a moderate chemopreventive effect on adenomas in the large bowel.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2002

Colorectal cancer screening: the potential role of virtual colonoscopy.

Virtual colonoscopy is a promising new technique that combines rapid spiral CT scanning of the abdomen with advanced computer programs capable of re-creating two- and three-dimensional views of the colon and rectum. Recent studies comparing this method with conventional colonoscopy show that virtual colonoscopy already is more accurate than barium enema X-ray studies for the detection of colorectal polyps, and that it approaches the accuracy of colonoscopy for diagnosing advanced lesions. Before virtual colonoscopy can be promoted for population-based screening for colorectal cancer, a number of issues discussed in this review need to be addressed. These include questions of accuracy, availability, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness.

Colonography, Computed Tomographic↗
PubMed2002

Fecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer.

In summary, high-quality scientific studies indicate that the use of the FOBT for colorectal cancer screening has a number of important advantages. The test is capable of detecting most early colorectal cancers and many advanced adenomas. It has been shown in randomized, controlled trials to reduce substantially colorectal cancer mortality and incidence. The FOBT is feasible, widely available, and acceptable to most individuals. It has a low up-front cost and is highly cost-effective. Combining annual FOBT with periodic flexible sigmoidoscopy seems to be an especially effective screening option. Limitations of FOBT screening include its low sensitivity for polyps, especially smaller ones. Some of the trials report a relatively low sensitivity for detecting cancers located in the distal colon. The test has a relatively low specificity, so there are many false-positive screens; and for it to be most effective, repetitive screening is necessary. Balancing these advantages and disadvantages, the evidence-based screening guidelines have concluded that FOBT screening has a major role to play in colorectal cancer control and a program of annual FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years is a preferred option for screening the asymptomatic, average-risk population for colorectal cancer. Short of doing direct colonoscopy screening for the entire at-risk population, the FOBT currently is the best available method of identifying asymptomatic, average-risk people most likely to benefit from colonoscopy.

Colonic Polyps↗
PubMed2002

Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Indirect evidence and modeling analyses suggest that colonoscopy may be the most cost-effective way to screen the average-risk population for colorectal neoplasia. However, the success and safety of primary colonoscopic screening has not been prospectively evaluated in a multicenter trial. METHODS: Asymptomatic subjects age 50 to 75 years who had not undergone examination of the colon within 10 years were recruited from the general medicine clinics of 13 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Eligible patients underwent colonoscopy by study coinvestigators, at which time all polyps were measured, photographed, and removed. Patients were contacted at 24 hours and 1 week to track procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Primary screening colonoscopy was performed in a cohort of 3196 asymptomatic subjects. A "good" preparation was reported in 81% of patients, and colonoscopy to the cecum was successful in 97.2% of cases. Mean insertion time to the cecum and total procedure times were 10.5 (8.7) and 30.6 (19.1) minutes, respectively. No preprocedural patient characteristics were identified that were predictive of an incomplete procedure. At least one polyp was resected in 1672 patients. There was no perforation and no death attributed to colonoscopy. Major morbidity considered to be definitely related to colonoscopy occurred in 9 of 3196 procedures (0.3%): lower GI bleeding requiring intervention (6), myocardial infarction and/or cerebrovascular accident (2), and thrombophlebitis (1). In subjects undergoing only diagnostic procedures, the major complication rate was 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy can be performed in multiple centers with a high degree of success and safety in large numbers of asymptomatic, average-risk men.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

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

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings uncovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or have a diagnostic workup for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas as well as missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which demonstrated clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance be 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003, these guidelines were updated, colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, and stratification at baseline into lower and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have demonstrated that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present paper, a careful analytic approach was designed addressing all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be more definitely stratified at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either three or more adenomas, or high-grade dysplasia, or villous features, or an adenoma > or =1 cm in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have one or two small (< 1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up in 5 to 10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up as average-risk people. Recent papers have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians' concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase utilization of the recommendations by endoscopists. Adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.

Adenomatous Polyps↗