Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jun;48(6):571-8.
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-104116. Epub 2016 Apr 4.

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials

Affiliations

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials

Rodrigo Jover et al. Endoscopy. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

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).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 2
Figure 2
EPoS trials inclusion criteria
Figure 3
Figure 3
EPoS trial flowchart for initial surveillance interval
Figure 4
Figure 4
EPoS trial flowchart of subsequent surveillance intervals

Comment in

References

    1. GLOBOCAN Database. International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Health Organization; 2008. http://globocan.iarc.fr/
    1. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:525–32. - PubMed
    1. Ijspeert JE, Vermeulen L, Meijer GA, Dekker E. Serrated neoplasia-role in colorectal carcinogenesis and clinical implications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12:401–9. - PubMed
    1. Bretthauer M. Evidence for colorectal cancer screening. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology. 2010;24:417–425. - PubMed
    1. Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Colonoscopy as a triage screening test. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:759–60. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data