Only a few previous studies have looked at polyp growth rates based on observed changes over time in patients with unresected polyps. In an early study, Welin and co-workers estimated the growth of tumors and colorectal polyps based on change of observed size in patients with multiple barium enema studies[6]. The study included 17 patients with adenomatous polyps who were followed for up to ten years after the initial polyp detection. The authors concluded that growth rates were similar for pathologically proven polyps and cancer, that growth rates were generally slow even for cancers, and that it was impossible to distinguish between linear and exponential growth rates.
After the advent of colonoscopy, a few follow-up studies of polyps detected and marked at the time of the initial screening examination have been performed. Hofsted and co-workers studied 58 patients over a three year period and found that 40% of polyps became larger, 27% were unchanged, and in 35% there was an apparent reduction in size[7]. Approximately half of the polyps included in the study were ≤ 4mm, so that measuring exact change in size would have been problematic. In a more recent study where 26 patients with marked polyps were followed over a period of two years, the findings were similar with inconsistent growth rates, and again, some polyps appeared to diminish in size during the study period[12]. Kozo, in a study of 33 patients enrolled in the placebo arm of a therapeutic trial found that polyp size increased about 5% per year but with wide variation[13].
These comparatively small studies imply that polyp growth rates are inconsistent and that in some cases polyps diminish in size over time. Data from a modeling exercise based on the national polyp data postulated that a regression in polyp size could explain the discrepancy between the large number of polyps in the population and the observed incidence of colorectal cancer[14].
In our study, mean differences in polyp size were present for study variables in most age groups and were initially observed in the youngest patient groups. Size differences were particularly striking for the number of polyps: in both univariate and multivariate analysis multiplicity of polyps, present in about one-third of patients, was the strongest risk factor for polyp size. The size of the largest polyp in patients with multiple polyps was approximately 50% larger than the largest polyp found in patients with only a single polyp. This finding suggests that either the growth pattern of multiple polyps is more aggressive than single polyps, or that initial polyp formation in patients with multiple polyps begins considerably earlier than in patients with a single polyp. This finding provides strong evidence supporting the recommendation that the screening interval in patients with multiple polyps be shorter than for patients with single polyps[15].
This study confirms and extends the previously reported findings from the CORI database relating to age and race as determinants of polyp size[9, 16]. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, these two variables were strongly associated with polyp size in all age groups. In addition, gender, polyp location, and number of polyps were also found to be associated with polyp size.
Information about life style factors are not routinely collected in the CORI data set. Polyp formation has been related to factors such as smoking, alcohol and obesity and these factors could be important for polyp growth[17–21]. Additional studies need to be performed to determine the relationship between factors that predict polyp size reported here and environmental and genetic factors. Factors such as age, gender, polyp location and polyp multiplicity along with environmental factors are likely to affect mutational rates of crypt cells causing differences in the growth rates of polyps. Genetic factors which lead to genetic instability and which affect the growth rate of precursors of colorectal cancer undoubtedly play an important role[22, 23]. Smoking and alcohol drinking are more prevalent in males and might explain the male/female differences in polyp size. It is of interest that a recent report based on colonoscopy screening in a different cohort found that smoking was significantly related to polyp size[24].
Family history of bowel cancer was not a predictor of polyp size in our data set. Our finding agrees with results from a smaller study based on the same CORI data where pathologic data were indicated that a positive family history for bowel cancer was not associated with an increased proportion of patients with advanced neoplasia[4]. Our results about family history contrast with the results of a direct observational study of polyp growth, where family history appeared to be a risk factor for polyp growth[10]. However this study was based on only 14 patients with a positive family history of bowel cancer who had been enrolled in the placebo arm of a randomized trial. In a follow-up study of patients after an initial screening colonoscopy, Nusko and co-workers found that a positive family history of colorectal cancer increased the risk of developing a metachronous tubular adenoma[11].
The strengths of this study relate to the large number of colonoscopies performed in various settings, with uniformity of data collection maintained by using a single reporting form. The procedures were carried out in two different racial groups in a variety of settings, so that the findings are likely to be valid for the general population.
This study has several weaknesses. In particular, because pathologic information was unavailable for patients from three-quarters of the centers, we did not include this variable in the analysis. Restricting the data set to those patients with a confirmed pathologic diagnosis would have greatly reduced the power of the study. By setting the upper limit of polyp size at 4 cm, it is likely we have captured all polyps detected at screening colonoscopy, but predictably, the data set includes patients with advanced histology. A previous report provides pathologic information based on nearly 6,000 patients included in the CORI database undergoing screening colonoscopy where pathologic information was available [4]. Based on this report, we estimate that about 8% of polyps in the current study would have been classified as having advanced histology including cancer, 51% a tubular adenoma, and 41% of patients would have a non-neoplastic (hyperplastic, inflammatory, lymphoid tissue) lesion.
Although the results are based on the initial screening at a participating center, it is possible that some patients may have had a previous examination in a non-participating center prior to being examined at a participating center. It is possible that patients with a positive family history, and those patients visiting academic, VA or military centers, would be more likely to have undergone prior examinations and that black patients might have been less likely to have had a prior colonoscopy. If so, then this differential exposure to a prior screening colonoscopy could partially explain some of our findings.
We performed multivariate analysis using available information. However we were unable to adjust for either lifestyle factors or genetic factors; if available these additional factors might have altered our findings.
Another study weakness is that there is likely to be measurement error of recorded polyp size leading to misclassification of polyp size. We believe this measurement error is likely to be bi-directional and based upon a previous sensitivity analysis of polyp size in CORI data, is unlikely to invalidate the findings. The analysis was limited to patients who underwent a first colonoscopy at a CORI-participating site during the study period, but we do not have information on whether the procedure was the patient's first ever, or just their first in the study period. Although this adds uncertainty about what we are measuring (a small polyp or lack of any polyp could occur in a patient who had prior polypectomy), this would only serve to underestimate our findings, as older patients are certainly more likely to have had prior screening compared to younger patients. A final weakness limiting our ability to study patient-specific growth patterns is that we analyzed aggregate patient data. The ideal method for studying polyp growth would be to use serial measurements over time in individual patients. But as pointed out previously, because of ethical considerations, such studies have rarely been performed.
In this study we studied the size of the largest polyp detected at screening colonoscopy performed in a large sample of patients in various practice settings. Although it is impossible to make exact inferences about polyp growth rates from our cross-sectional data, the observed age-related changes in mean polyp size serve as a surrogate measure of polyp growth. In our study younger patients are likely to have smaller polyps and there appears to be a linear relationship between age and polyp size. Overall polyp size increased gradually with age, and other factors such as gender, race, location of polyp, and the number of polyps were strong independent predictors of polyp size. Our data suggest that for many patients, several decades must elapse before a polyp initially measuring ≥ 5 mm attains a size where there is a significant risk of advanced pathology.
Decision models of colorectal screening make assumptions about polyp dwell time to help determine intervals between examinations. These data provide quantitative information about polyp duration which may prove useful for future decision models. The data also includes information about other variables that might help clinicians and policy makers determine the timing of initial colonoscopy, the frequency of follow-up procedures, and the most suitable screening procedure for individual patients.
