Risk Prediction of Metachronous Colorectal Cancer from Molecular Features of Adenomas: A Nested Case-Control Study.

Current morphologic features defining advanced adenomas (size ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or ≥25% villous component) cannot optimally distinguish individuals at high risk or low risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (me-CRC), which may result in suboptimal surveillance. Certain DNA copy-number alterations (CNAs) are associated with adenoma-to-carcinoma progression. We aimed to evaluate whether these molecular features can better predict an individual's risk of me-CRC than the morphologic advanced adenoma features.In this nested case-control study, 529 individuals with a single adenoma at first colonoscopy were selected from a Norwegian adenoma cohort. DNA copy-number profiles were determined, by low-coverage whole-genome sequencing. Prevalence of CNAs in advanced and non-advanced adenomas and its association (OR) with me-CRC was assessed. For the latter, cases (with me-CRC) were matched to controls (without me-CRC) on follow-up, age and sex.CNAs associated with adenoma-to-carcinoma progression were observed in 85/267 (32%) of advanced adenomas and in 27/262 (10%) of non-advanced adenomas. me-CRC was statistically significantly associated, also after adjustment for other variables, with age at baseline [OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval CI), 1.03-1.26; P = 0.012], advanced adenomas (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.50-4.01; P < 0.001) and with the presence of ≥3 DNA copy-number losses (OR, 1.90; 95% CI. 1.02-3.54; P = 0.043).Molecularly-defined high-risk adenomas were associated with me-CRC, but the association of advanced adenoma with me-CRC was stronger. SIGNIFICANCE: Identifying new biomarkers may improve prediction of me-CRC for individuals with adenomas and optimize surveillance intervals to reduce risk of colorectal cancer and reduce oversurveillance of patients with low risk of colorectal cancer. Use of DNA CNAs alone does not improve prediction of me-CRC. Further research to improve risk classification is required.

A Comparison of Risk Classification Systems of Colorectal Adenomas: A Case-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Because post-polypectomy surveillance uses a growing proportion of colonoscopy capacity, more targeted surveillance is warranted. We therefore compared surveillance burden and cancer detection using 3 different adenoma classification systems. METHODS: In a case-cohort study among individuals who had adenomas removed between 1993 and 2007, we included 675 individuals with colorectal cancer (cases) diagnosed a median of 5.6 years after adenoma removal and 906 randomly selected individuals (subcohort). We compared colorectal cancer incidence among high- and low-risk individuals defined according to the traditional (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous growth pattern, or 3 or more adenomas), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2020 (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or 5 or more adenomas), and novel (high-risk: diameter ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia) classification systems. For the different classification systems, we calculated the number of individuals recommended frequent surveillance colonoscopy and estimated number of delayed cancer diagnoses. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty individuals with adenomas (52.7%) were high risk based on the traditional classification, 369 (45.2%) were high risk based on the ESGE 2020 classification, and 220 (27.0%) were high risk based on the novel classification. Using the traditional, ESGE 2020, and novel classifications, the colorectal cancer incidences per 100,000 person-years were 479, 552, and 690 among high-risk individuals, and 123, 124, and 179 among low-risk individuals, respectively. Compared with the traditional classification, the number of individuals who needed frequent surveillance was reduced by 13.9% and 44.2%, respectively, and 1 (3.4%) and 7 (24.1%) cancer diagnoses were delayed using the ESGE 2020 and novel classifications. CONCLUSIONS: Using the ESGE 2020 and novel risk classifications will substantially reduce resources needed for colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal.

A progressive three-state model to estimate time to cancer: a likelihood-based approach.

BACKGROUND: To optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, information regarding the time-dependent risk of advanced adenomas (AA) to develop into CRC is crucial. However, since AA are removed after diagnosis, the time from AA to CRC cannot be observed in an ethically acceptable manner. We propose a statistical method to indirectly infer this time in a progressive three-state disease model using surveillance data. METHODS: Sixteen models were specified, with and without covariates. Parameters of the parametric time-to-event distributions from the adenoma-free state (AF) to AA and from AA to CRC were estimated simultaneously, by maximizing the likelihood function. Model performance was assessed via simulation. The methodology was applied to a random sample of 878 individuals from a Norwegian adenoma cohort. RESULTS: Estimates of the parameters of the time distributions are consistent and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) have good coverage. For the Norwegian sample (AF: 78%, AA: 20%, CRC: 2%), a Weibull model for both transition times was selected as the final model based on information criteria. The mean time among those who have made the transition to CRC since AA onset within 50 years was estimated to be 4.80 years (95% CI: 0; 7.61). The 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of CRC from AA was 13.8% (95% CI: 7.8%;23.8%) and 15.4% (95% CI: 8.2%;34.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The time-dependent risk from AA to CRC is crucial to explain differences in the outcomes of microsimulation models used for the optimization of CRC prevention. Our method allows for improving models by the inclusion of data-driven time distributions.

Emergency hospital admissions, prognosis, and population mortality in Norway during the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic, a national lockdown was established in Norway, and inhabitants were asked to contact healthcare only if absolutely necessary. We investigated hospital admissions and mortality due to non-Covid-19 disease during the lockdown compared to previous years. METHODS: We compared the number of emergency admissions and in-hospital fatality for diagnoses probably unaffected (acute myocardial infarction, acute abdominal conditions, cerebrovascular diseases) and affected by the lockdown (infections, injuries) in the South-Eastern Health Region of Norway during weeks 12-22, 2020, compared to the mean of the same period in the years 2017-2019. We also compared population mortality March-May 2020, to the mean of the same period in years 2017-2019. RESULTS: A total of 280,043 emergency admissions were observed; 20,911 admissions probably unaffected, and 30,905 admissions probably affected by the lockdown. Admissions due to diagnoses probably unaffected was reduced by 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9-15%), compared to 2017-2019. Admissions for diagnoses probably affected was reduced by 30% (95% CI 28-32%). There was a 34% reduction in in-hospital fatality due to acute myocardial infarction (95% CI 4-56%), 19% due to infections (95% CI 1-33%), and no change for the other diagnoses, compared to 2017-2019. The risk of in-hospital mortality to total mortality was lower for acute myocardial infarction (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99) and injuries (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Even though fewer patients were admitted to hospital, there was no increase in in-hospital fatality or population mortality, indicating that those who were most in need still received adequate care.

Risk of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer is increased by primary sclerosing cholangitis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is continued uncertainty regarding the risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with or without concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). OBJECTIVE: To give updated estimates on risk of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with IBD, including pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gall bladder cancer, and intra - and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: In a population-based cohort study, we included all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 to 2016. The cohort comprised of 141,960 patients, identified through hospital databases and the National Patient Register. Participants were followed through linkage to national cancer, cause of death, and population registries. We calculated absolute risk and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers by PSC and other clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 141,960 IBD patients, 3.2% were diagnosed with PSC. During a median follow-up of 10.0 years, we identified 443 biliary tract cancers (SIR 5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8-5.7), 161 hepatocellular carcinomas (SIR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0-2.7) and 282 pancreatic cancers (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5). The relative risks were considerably higher in PSC-IBD patients, with SIR of 140 (95% CI 123-159) for biliary tract, 38.6 (95% CI 29.2-50.0) for hepatocellular, and 9.0 (95% CI 6.3-12.6) for pancreatic cancer. The SIRs were still slightly increased in non-PSC-IBD patients, compared to the general population. For biliary tract cancer, the cumulative probability at 25 years was 15.6% in PSC-IBD patients, and 0.4% in non-PSC-IBD patients. CONCLUSIONS: The dramatically increased risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in PSC-IBD patients support periodic surveillance for these malignancies. While much lower, the excess relative risks in non-PSC-IBD patients were not trivial compared to non-IBD related risk factors.

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Norway and Sweden are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care. Norway implemented extensive COVID-19 measures, such as school closures and lockdowns, whereas Sweden did not. Aims: To compare mortality in Norway and Sweden, two similar countries with very different mitigation measures against COVID-19. Methods: Using real-world data from national registries, we compared all-cause and COVID-19-related mortality rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per 100,000 person-weeks and mortality rate ratios (MRR) comparing the five preceding years (2015-2019) with the pandemic year (2020) in Norway and Sweden. Results: In Norway, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.6-15.1 per 100,000 person-weeks; mean mortality rate 14.9) and was lower in 2020 than from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.4; MRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.98). In Sweden, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2018 (mortality rate 17.0-17.8; mean mortality rate 17.1) and similar to that in 2020 (mortality rate 17.6), but lower in 2019 (mortality rate 16.2). Compared with the years 2015-2019, all-cause mortality in the pandemic year was 3% higher due to the lower rate in 2019 (MRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04). Excess mortality was confined to people aged ⩾70 years in Sweden compared with previous years. The COVID-19-associated mortality rates per 100,000 person-weeks during the first wave of the pandemic were 0.3 in Norway and 2.9 in Sweden. Conclusions: All-cause mortality in 2020 decreased in Norway and increased in Sweden compared with previous years. The observed excess deaths in Sweden during the pandemic may, in part, be explained by mortality displacement due to the low all-cause mortality in the previous year.

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men.

BACKGROUND: Women and men with colorectal adenomas are at increased risk of colorectal cancer and colonoscopic surveillance is recommended. However, the long-term cancer risk remains unknown. AIMS: To investigate colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men METHODS: We identified all individuals who had adenomas removed in Norway from 1993 to 2007, with follow-up through 2018. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and incidence-based mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for colorectal cancer in women and men using the female and male population for comparison. We defined high-risk adenomas as ≥2 adenomas, villous component, or high-grade dysplasia. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 40 293 individuals. During median follow-up of 13.0 years, 1079 women (5.5%) and 866 men (4.2%) developed colorectal cancer; 328 women (1.7%) and 275 men (1.3%) died of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer incidence was more increased in women (SIR 1.64, 95% CI 1.54-1.74) than in men (SIR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19). Colorectal cancer mortality was increased in women (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26) and reduced in men (SMR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89). Women with high-risk adenomas had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death (SMR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19-1.57); women with low-risk adenomas (SMR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.07) and men with high-risk adenomas had a similar risk (SMR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.04), while men with low-risk adenomas had reduced risk (SMR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: After adenoma removal, women had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death, while men had reduced risk, compared to the general female and male populations. Sex-specific surveillance recommendations after adenoma removal should be considered.

Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway - a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed fitness centers during the Covid-19 pandemic may negatively impact health and wellbeing. We assessed whether training at fitness centers increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. METHODS: In a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial, fitness center members aged 18 to 64 without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities, were randomized to access to training at a fitness center or no-access. Fitness centers applied physical distancing (1 m for floor exercise, 2 m for high-intensity classes) and enhanced hand and surface hygiene. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 RNA status by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) after 14 days, hospital admission after 21 days. The secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 antibody status after 1 month. RESULTS: 3764 individuals were randomized; 1896 to the training arm and 1868 to the no-training arm. In the training arm, 81.8% trained at least once, and 38.5% trained ≥six times. Of 3016 individuals who returned the SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests (80.5%), there was one positive test in the training arm, and none in the no-training arm (risk difference 0.053%; 95% CI - 0.050 to 0.156%; p = 0.32). Eleven individuals in the training arm (0.8% of tested) and 27 in the no-training arm (2.4% of tested) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (risk difference - 0.87%; 95%CI - 1.52% to - 0.23%; p = 0.001). No outpatient visits or hospital admissions due to Covid-19 occurred in either arm. CONCLUSION: Provided good hygiene and physical distancing measures and low population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no increased infection risk of SARS-CoV-2 in fitness centers in Oslo, Norway for individuals without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on May 13, 2020. Due to administrative issues it was first posted on the register website on May 29, 2020: NCT04406909 .

Artificial intelligence for polyp detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems are used during colonoscopy with the aim of increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risks and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Five randomized trials were eligible for analysis. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI (values given with 95 %CI). ADR with AI was 29.6 % (22.2 % - 37.0 %) versus 19.3 % (12.7 % - 25.9 %) without AI; relative risk (RR] 1.52 (1.31 - 1.77), with high certainty. PDR was 45.4 % (41.1 % - 49.8 %) with AI versus 30.6 % (26.5 % - 34.6 %) without AI; RR 1.48 (1.37 - 1.60), with high certainty. There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas (mean advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each group, high certainty). Mean adenomas detected per colonoscopy was higher for small adenomas (≤ 5 mm) for AI versus non-AI (mean difference 0.15 [0.12 - 0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (> 5 - ≤ 10 mm, mean difference 0.03 [0.01 - 0.05]; > 10 mm, mean difference 0.01 [0.00 - 0.02]; high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small nonadvanced adenomas and polyps, but not of advanced adenomas.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years. DESIGN: We performed an update of a Cochrane systematic review, and performed network meta-analysis comparing randomised trials evaluating colorectal cancer screening with guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (annual, biennial), faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (annual, biennial), sigmoidoscopy (once-only) or colonoscopy (once-only) in a healthy population, aged 50-79 years. We conducted subgroup analysis on sex. Follow-up >5 years was required for analysis of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. RESULTS: 12 randomised trials proved eligible. Compared with no-screening, we found high certainty evidence for sigmoidoscopy screening slightly reducing colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI 0.70 to 0.83) and mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80), while gFOBT screening had little or no difference on colorectal cancer incidence, but slightly reduced colorectal cancer mortality (annual: RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86, biennial: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93). No screening test reduced mortality nor incidence by more than six per 1000 screened over 15 years. Sigmoidoscopy had a greater effect in men, for both colorectal cancer incidence (women: RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.92, men: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.79), and mortality (women: RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96, men: RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In a 15-year perspective, sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence, while sigmoidoscopy, annual and biennial gFOBT all reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Sigmoidoscopy may reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality more in men than in women. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018093401.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?"

Mortality From Postscreening (Interval) Colorectal Cancers Is Comparable to That From Cancer in Unscreened Patients-A Randomized Sigmoidoscopy Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed at longer time intervals than the fecal occult blood test or screenings for breast or prostate cancer. This causes concerns about interval cancers, which have been proposed to progress more rapidly. We compared outcomes of patients with interval CRCs after sigmoidoscopy screening vs outcomes of patients with CRC who had not been screened. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trial in Norway with 98,684 participants (age range, 50-64 years) who were randomly assigned to groups that were (n = 20,552) or were not (n = 78,126) invited for sigmoidoscopy screening from 1999 through 2001; participants were followed up for a median 14.8 years. We compared CRC mortality and all-cause mortality between individuals who underwent screening and were diagnosed with CRC 30 days or longer after screening (interval cancer group, n = 163) and individuals diagnosed with CRC in the nonscreened group (controls, n = 1740). All CRCs in the control group were identified when they developed symptoms (clinically detected CRCs). Analyses were stratified by cancer site. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratio (HRs), adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: Over the follow-up period, 43 individuals in the interval cancer group died from CRC; among controls, 525 died from CRC. CRC mortality (adjusted HR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.35; P = .92), rectosigmoid cancer mortality (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.92; P = .74), and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.27; P = .91) did not differ significantly between the interval cancer group and controls. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trial, mortality did not differ significantly between individuals with interval CRCs and unscreened patients with clinically detected CRCs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00119912.

Colorectal cancer death after adenoma removal in Scandinavia.

OBJECTIVES: Improved understanding of the subsequent risk death from colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals who had adenomas removed is needed. We aimed to quantify this risk using prospectively collected data from population-based cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Norwegian and Swedish registries, a cohort of 90,864 individuals with colorectal adenomas removed between 1980 and 2013 was identified. Surveillance was only recommended for high-risk adenomas. The validity of the registry data did not allow classification into low- and high-risk adenomas. Virtually complete follow-up was achieved through linkage to nationwide registers. We calculated incidence-based standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 7.2 years; 48,058 individuals were followed for more than 10 years. We observed 819 deaths (0.9%) from CRC and expected 731 CRC deaths (0.8%), corresponding to an absolute excess risk of 88 cases (0.1%) and a relative risk of 12% (SMR 1.12; 95%CI 1.05-1.20). The relative risk of CRC death following adenoma removal was slightly higher in Sweden (SMR 1.22; 95%CI 1.11-1.34) than in Norway (SMR 1.03; 95%CI 0.93-1.14), and higher in women (SMR 1.24; 95%CI 1.12-1.36) than in men (SMR 1.02; 95%CI 0.93-1.13). Among individuals with more than 10 years of follow-up, the estimates were similar to the overall cohort, absolute excess risk 0.1% (SMR 1.15; 95%CI 1.06-1.24). CONCLUSION: The excess risk of CRC death following adenoma removal is small. Optimal surveillance recommendations should be tested in randomised trials.