Original article Clinical endoscopy| Volume 97, ISSUE 2, P350-356.e3, February 2023

Real-world compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer polypectomy surveillance guidelines: an observational study

Published:August 20, 2022DOI:

      Background and Aims

      Overuse of screening colonoscopy increases cost and procedural adverse events, but inadequate surveillance can miss the development of colorectal cancer. We measured compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) polypectomy surveillance guidelines in clinical records and a survey.


      We performed a retrospective study comparing surveillance intervals for first-time average-risk colonoscopies with the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. Cases were analyzed from 3 intervals (March 2021 to May 2021, November 2021 to January 2022, and April 2022 to May 2022), collectively termed the postguideline period, and a baseline period from November 2019 to January 2020. Real-world compliance rates were compared with results of a survey conducted between November 2020 and February 2021.


      Overall compliance was 48.9% among 532 colonoscopies, ranging from 8.3% for low-risk adenomas (LRAs), 88.3% for high-risk adenomas, 63.1% for sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), and 88.6% for hyperplastic polyps. Compliance for LRA increased from the baseline period (.8% vs 8.3%, P = .003), and 95.3% of nonadherent LRA cases followed the 2012 USMSTF guidelines. Compliance for LRAs was 18.6% among respondents who provided a compliant surveillance interval for LRAs in the survey. Noncompliance was associated with finishing training >10 years ago (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.7) and performing over 800 colonoscopies annually (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.6).


      Adoption of the 2020 USMSTF surveillance guidelines remains low at 2 years. Further research into outcomes for patients with LRAs and SSPs may increase guideline adoption.


      CRC (colorectal cancer), HP (hyperplastic polyp), HRA (high-risk adenoma), LRA (low-risk adenoma), SSP (sessile serrated polyp), TA (tubular adenoma), USMSTF (U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Knudsen A.B.
        • Rutter C.M.
        • Peterse E.F.P.
        • et al.
        Colorectal cancer screening: an updated modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
        JAMA. 2021; 325: 1998-2011
        • Subramanian S.
        • Tangka F.K.L.
        • Hoover S.
        • et al.
        Costs of colorectal cancer screening provision in CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program: comparisons of colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT based screening.
        Eval Program Plann. 2017; 62: 73-80
        • Ran T.
        • Cheng C.Y.
        • Misselwitz B.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies—a systematic review.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 17: 1969-1981
        • Panteris V.
        • Haringsma J.
        • Kuipers E.J.
        Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy.
        Endoscopy. 2009; 41: 941-951
        • van Heijningen E.M.B.
        • Lansdorp-Vogelaar I.
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • et al.
        Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study.
        Gut. 2015; 64: 1584-1592
        • Nayor J.
        • Saltzman J.R.
        • Campbell E.J.
        • et al.
        Impact of physician compliance with colonoscopy surveillance guidelines on interval colorectal cancer.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85: 1263-1270
        • Sanaka M.R.
        • Super D.M.
        • Feldman E.S.
        • et al.
        Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63: 97-103
        • Goodwin J.S.
        • Singh A.
        • Reddy N.
        • et al.
        Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population.
        Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 1335-1343
        • Johnson M.R.
        • Grubber J.
        • Grambow S.C.
        • et al.
        Physician non-adherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.
        Gastroenterology. 2015; 149: 938-951
        • Djinbachian R.
        • Dubé A.J.
        • Durand M.
        • et al.
        Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Endoscopy. 2019; 51: 673-683
        • Oh C.K.
        • Aniwan S.
        • Piyachaturawat P.
        • et al.
        Adherence to surveillance guidelines after the removal of colorectal polyps: a multinational, multicenter, prospective survey.
        Gut Liver. 2021; 15: 878-886
        • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        Quality ID #320 (NQF 0658): appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients. Published online December 2021.
        (Available at:
        Date accessed: July 9, 2022
        • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        Quality ID #185: colonoscopy interval for patients with a history of adenomatous polyps - avoidance of inappropriate use. Published online December 2021.
        (Available at:)
        • Gupta S.
        • Lieberman D.
        • Anderson J.C.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2020; 91: 463-485
        • Saini S.D.
        • Nayak R.S.
        • Kuhn L.
        • et al.
        Why don’t gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines? Results of a national survey.
        J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009; 43: 554-558
        • Kim E.R.
        • Sinn D.H.
        • Kim J.Y.
        • et al.
        Factors associated with adherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval.
        Surg Endosc. 2012; 26: 1690-1695
        • Shah T.U.
        • Voils C.I.
        • McNeil R.
        • et al.
        Understanding gastroenterologist adherence to polyp surveillance guidelines.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: 1283-1287
        • Patel N.
        • Tong L.
        • Ahn C.
        • et al.
        Post-polypectomy guideline adherence: importance of belief in guidelines, not guideline knowledge or fear of missed cancer.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2015; 60: 2937-2945
        • Desai V.
        • Sussman D.A.
        • Greenspan M.
        • et al.
        Most premature surveillance colonoscopy is not attributable to bowel preparation or new clinical indications.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2016; 61: 2496-2504
        • Anderson J.C.
        • Baron J.A.
        • Ahnen D.J.
        • et al.
        Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome.
        Gastroenterology. 2017; 152: 1933-1943
        • Winawer S.
        • Fletcher R.
        • Rex D.
        • et al.
        Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence.
        Gastroenterology. 2003; 124: 544-560
        • Winawer S.J.
        • Zauber A.G.
        • Fletcher R.H.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.
        Gastroenterology. 2006; 130: 1872-1885
        • Lieberman D.A.
        • Rex D.K.
        • Winawer S.J.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
        Gastroenterology. 2012; 143: 844-857
        • Carlsen B.
        • Glenton C.
        • Pope C.
        Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs’ attitudes to clinical practice guidelines.
        Br J Gen Pract. 2007; 57: 971-978
        • U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce
        Recommendation: colorectal cancer: screening. Published May 18, 2021.
        (Available at:)
        • Halm E.A.
        • Atlas S.J.
        • Borowsky L.H.
        • et al.
        Understanding physician adherence with a pneumonia practice guideline: effects of patient, system, and physician factors.
        Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160: 98-104
        • Iskandar H.
        • Yan Y.
        • Elwing J.
        • et al.
        Predictors of poor adherence of US gastroenterologists with colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2015; 60: 971-978
        • Cowan R.A.
        • O’Cearbhaill R.E.
        • Gardner G.J.
        • et al.
        Is it time to centralize ovarian cancer care in the United States?.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 989-993
        • Eskander A.
        • Monteiro E.
        • Irish J.
        • et al.
        Adherence to guideline-recommended process measures for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in Ontario: impact of surgeon and hospital volume.
        Head Neck. 2016; 38: E1987-E1992
        • Tran M.G.B.
        • Aben K.K.H.
        • Werkhoven E.
        • et al.
        Guideline adherence for the surgical treatment of T1 renal tumours correlates with hospital volume: an analysis from the British Association of Urological Surgeons nephrectomy audit.
        BJU Int. 2020; 125: 73-81
        • Chen Y.C.
        • Cheng S.H.
        • Chen C.C.
        Keeping up with guideline recommendations: Does patient volume matter in diabetes care?.
        Am J Manag Care. 2020; 26: e264-e271