The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Long-Term Risk of Colorectal Cancer after Excision of Rectosigmoid Adenomas
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Surveillance by repeated colonoscopy is currently recommended for patients with colorectal adenomas. We assessed the long-term risk of colorectal cancer after rigid-instrument sigmoidoscopy and polypectomy in 1618 patients with rectosigmoid adenomas (tumor of the rectum or distal sigmoid colon) who did not undergo surveillance. A total of 22,462 person-years of observation were accrued (mean, 14 years per patient). RESULTS: The incidence of subsequent rectal cancer in these patients was similar to that in the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.7 to 2.1). Most rectal cancers developed in patients whose adenomas had been inadequately removed; the risk was very low after complete removal. The risk of subsequent colon cancer depended on the histologic type, size, and number of adenomas in the rectosigmoid. Among 842 patients with a rectosigmoid adenoma that was tubulovillous, villous, or large (greater than or equal to 1 cm), colon cancer developed in 31 patients. The standardized incidence ratio was 3.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.4 to 5.0) overall and 6.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 3.3 to 11.8) if there were multiple rectosigmoid adenomas. Among the remaining 776 patients with only small, tubular adenomas (whether single or multiple), colon cancer developed in only 4 patients. The standardized incidence ratio in this group was 0.5 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up colonoscopic examinations may be warranted in patients with tubulovillous, villous, or large adenomas in the rectosigmoid, particularly if the adenomas are also multiple. In patients with only a single, small tubular adenoma that is only mildly or moderately dysplastic (43 percent of our series), however, surveillance may not be of value because the risk of cancer is so low.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Cited by
Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines
Saito, Y., Oka, S., Kawamura, T., Shimoda, R., Sekiguchi, M., Tamai, N., Hotta, K., Matsuda, T., Misawa, M., Tanaka, S., et al. (2021) · Digestive Endoscopy · doi:10.1111/den.13972 · Cited by 170
Atkin, W., Cross, A. J., Kralj-Hans, I., MacRae, E., Piggott, C., Pearson, S., Wooldrage, K., Brown, J., Lucas, F., Prendergast, A., et al. (2019) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta23010 · Cited by 129
Self-citationScreening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer: A Review of the Literature
Maida, M., Dahiya, D. S., Shah, Y. R., Tiwari, A., Gopakumar, H., Vohra, I., Khan, A., Jaber, F., Ramai, D., & Facciorusso, A. (2024) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers16152746 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Atkin, W. S., Morson, B. C., & Cuzick, J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1992-03-05
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 658-662
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2005756196
- Cited by
- 1,073
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-Term Risk of Colorectal Cancer after Excision of Rectosigmoid Adenomas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199203053261002
- The paper
- Atkin, W. S., Morson, B. C., & Cuzick, J. (1992). Long-Term Risk of Colorectal Cancer after Excision of Rectosigmoid Adenomas. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199203053261002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.