Endoscopy · 2016
Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials.
Протокол клинического исследованияСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jover Rodrigo, Bretthauer Michael, Dekker Evelien, Holme Øyvind, Kaminski Michal F, Løberg Magnus, Zauber Ann G, Hernán Miguel A, Lansdorp-Vogelaar Iris, Sunde Annike, McFadden Eleanor, Castells Antoni, Regula Jaroslaw, Quintero Enrique, Pellisé Maria, Senore Carlo, Kalager Mette, Dinis-Ribeiro Mario, Emilsson Louise, Ransohoff David F, Hoff Geir, Adami Hans-Olov
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies after polyp removal depending on the number and characteristics of polyps, but there is a lack of evidence supporting the recommendations. This report outlines the rationale and design of two randomized trials and one observational study investigating evidence-based surveillance strategies following polyp removal. Study design and endpoints: The EPoS studies started to recruit patients in April 2015. EPoS study I randomizes 13 746 patients with low-risk adenomas (1 - 2 tubular adenomas size < 10 mm, low-grade dysplasia) to surveillance after 5 and 10 years, or 10 years only. EPoS study II randomizes 13 704 patients with high-risk adenomas (3 - 10 adenomas or adenoma ≥ 10 mm in diameter, or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or > 25 % villous features) to surveillance after 3, 5, and 10 years, or 5 and 10 years only. EPoS study III offers surveillance after 5 and 10 years to patients with serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm in diameter at any location, or serrated polyps ≥ 5 mm in diameter proximal to the splenic flexure. All polyps are removed before patients enter the trials. The primary end point is colorectal cancer incidence after 10 years. We assume a colorectal cancer risk of 1 % for patients in EPoS I, and 2 % for patients in EPoS II. Using a noninferiority hypothesis with an equivalence interval of 0.5 % for EPoS I and 0.7 % for EPoS II, the trials are 90 % powered to uncover differences larger than the equivalence intervals. For EPoS III, no power analyses have been performed.
CONCLUSIONS: The present trials aim to develop evidence-based strategies for polyp surveillance, thereby maximizing effectiveness and minimizing resources.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02319928).
CONCLUSIONS: The present trials aim to develop evidence-based strategies for polyp surveillance, thereby maximizing effectiveness and minimizing resources.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02319928).