View clinical trials related to Colonic Polyp.
Filter by:Overall Objective: To optimize timing of surveillance colonoscopy. Principal research question and specific aims: To assess the impact of access to a hand-held application on the timing of surveillance colonoscopy. To assess whether access to the tool improves adherence to recommended guidelines for follow-up colonoscopy intervals. Colonoscopy is commonly used for surveillance of patients with high risk of developing colorectal cancer, including those with family history of colorectal cancer and those with colorectal polyps. The recommended timing of surveillance colonoscopy varies by the estimated risk for development of colorectal cancer. The estimated risk varies by family history of colorectal cancer (number of affected individuals, age of the persons affected with CRC) and characteristics of the colorectal polyps (size, number, and histology of colorectal polyps (tubular or villous; high grade or low-grade dysplasia; sessile serrated polyp, sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia, hyperplastic polyp or traditional serrated adenomas). Guidelines take all of these factors into account in the recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy and hence are difficult to recall for the busy clinicians. Colonoscopy surveillance is frequently performed at shorter or longer than the recommended time intervals. The investigators have developed a smart phone application in which the characteristics of the patients can be inputted and the tool provides the recommended time interval for surveillance colonoscopy, based on North American guidelines. The investigators are proposing a pilot randomized trial to determine sample size estimates for a larger trial to assess the utility of this application in clinical practice.
Initially developed in Japan for the treatment of endemic superficial gastric cancers, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows resection of pre-neoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the digestive tract into a single fragment. It allows a perfect pathological analysis, and decreases the rate of recurrence of the adenoma to less than 2% However, this procedure, which is technically more challenging, is also more risky (perforation rate at 4% vs. 1% for WF-EMR) and longer. Submucosal dissection is also more expensive in terms of equipment, but this difference can be offset by the cost of the high number of iterative colonoscopies required in patients who have had endoscopic resection by WF-EMR. Scientific debate is agitating the Western world1,2 and Japanese experts do not perform WF-EMR anymore, whereas no comparative prospective study has compared these two procedures. We therefore propose to compare these two endoscopic resection strategies in terms of recurrence rate at 6 months and to estimate the differential cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios over a 36-month time horizon.