Search

Colonic polyp surveillance guidelines are based on data from patients 50 and above. Given the recent lowering for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to age 45, the aim of this study was to assess whether existing colonic polyp surveillance guidelines are appropriate to use in younger patients.We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent 2 colonoscopies within a 10-year period. Five Risk Stratification Groups (RSG) were developed based on surveillance colonoscopy interval times recommended by the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on CRC, and changes in RSG from index to surveillance colonoscopy were compared between 3 age cohorts-those below 45, those 45 to 49, and those 50 and above. Further analysis was performed for patients whose RSG worsened from index to surveillance colonoscopy, as this was defined as an inappropriate surveillance interval.A total of 1895 patients were included in the final analysis. A multivariate regression model showed that a worsened RSG was not significantly associated with age group, both when comparing below 45 to those 50 and above [odds ratio (OR)=0.840, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.504-1.399, P=0.50] and when comparing those 45 to 49 to those 50 and above (OR=1.416, 95% CI: 0.905-2.216, P=0.13). Only being female was found to be statistically associated with worsened RSG after controlling for other variables (OR=0.652, 95% CI: 0.486-0.875, P0.01).Our study found that younger cohorts of patients, both below 45 and those 45 to 49, are not statistically more likely to develop more advanced polyps necessitating a shorter time to surveillance colonoscopy compared with patients 50 years and above. This finding supports using existing colonic polyp surveillance colonoscopy guidelines that were developed for patients 50 years and above in both patients below 45 and those 45 to 49 years old.

PURPOSE To report two cases where the primary visual complaints were central visual phenomena, with normal fundus biomicroscopy. METHODS History and clinical examination, fundus autofluorescence, and spectral domain-optical coherence tomography. RESULTS The authors report 2 patients, a 66-year-old woman and a 77-year-old woman, who complained of a central visual disturbance in one eye. Best-corrected visual acuity was normal. Ophthalmoscopy in the first case was unremarkable and showed minimal retinal pigment epithelial mottling in Case 2. Spectral domain-optical coherence tomography revealed vitreomacular traction with foveal distortion in both eyes, associated with small cysts in the inner retinal layers and in one patient disruption of photoreceptors. CONCLUSION Central visual phenomena are important clues for central vitreomacular traction, even in the presence of a normal fundus examination. The authors highlight the importance of performing spectral domain-optical coherence tomography evaluation in this setting before considering neurologic or systemic causes.