Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Objective To determine a risk scoring system for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) within subcentimetric polyps in a large Asian population. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in Hong Kong SAR, China involving participants who underwent colonoscopy between 2008 and 2015. A random sample of 20 072 subjects were included as the derivation cohort to assess ACN‐associated independent factors using logistic regression modeling. Another 8603 subjects formed a validation cohort. A risk scoring system was developed and its performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results The risk scores were assigned based on the following criteria: (a) patients who were admitted from inpatient colonoscopy (2.2) or not (1); (b) with three or more chronic diseases (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, heart disease, or cancer) (1.7) or not (1); (c) anemia (1.3) or without anemia (1); (d) receiving aspirin (0.5) or not (1); (e) receiving other nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (0.3) or not (1); (f) male (1.2) or female gender (1); (g) age <55 (1), 55–64 (1.4), 65–69 (2), 70 years or above (2.2). ACN was more common in those with scores of 2.192 or higher, and they were classified as high risk (HR). The prevalence of ACN in the validation cohort was 13.28% and 3.56% in the HR and low‐risk groups, respectively. In both the derivation and validation cohorts, AUROC of the risk‐scoring model was 0.7138. Conclusion Physicians are recommended to utilize this validated score for risk‐stratification of patients having subcentimetric polyps.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Junjie Huang
Eman Yee‐Man Leung
Sam C. C. Chun
Journal of Digestive Diseases
Peking University
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Erasmus MC
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Huang et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6249ab6db6435875b6823 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-2980.13303
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: