Comparison of risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic adenomas aged < 50 versus ≥ 50 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yoon Suk Jung, Jung Ho Park, Chan Hyuk Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

No specific recommendations are available for the surveillance of young patients aged <50 years undergoing polypectomy. We aimed to compare the risk of metachronous advanced colorec-tal neoplasia (ACRN) between patients aged ≥50 years and those aged <50 years who underwent polypectomy. Studies published between January 1980 and June 2020 that examined the risk of met-achronous ACRN were searched. We performed a meta-analysis for the metachronous ACRN risk in patients with sporadic colorectal adenomas according to the age groups (≥50 vs. <50 years). Eight individual studies were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of metachronous ACRN was higher in patients aged ≥50 years than in those aged <50 years without significant heterogeneity (odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.62 (1.34–1.96), I2 = 14%). The impact of the age group on the risk of metachronous ACRN was identified in both the low-risk (LRA) and high-risk (HRA) adenoma groups (≥50 vs. <50 years: LRA, OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.30–2.70); HRA, OR 1.50 [95% CI 1.13–2.00]). In conclusion, patients aged <50 years had a lower risk of metachronous ACRN than older patients. Young patients with sporadic adenomas do not require more intensive surveillance; rather, the surveillance interval may be extended in these patients.

Original languageEnglish
Article number120
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Personalized Medicine
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2021 Feb

Keywords

  • Age
  • Metachronous advanced colorectal neo-plasia
  • Polypectomy
  • Surveillance colonoscopy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic adenomas aged < 50 versus ≥ 50 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this