Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Sidney J. Winawer is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Sidney J. Winawer.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 1993

Prevention of Colorectal Cancer by Colonoscopic Polypectomy

Sidney J. Winawer; Ann G. Zauber; May Nah Ho; Michael J. O'Brien; Leonard S. Gottlieb; Stephen S. Sternberg; Jerome D. Waye; Melvin Schapiro; John H. Bond; Joel F. Panish; Frederick W. Ackroyd; Moshe Shike; Robert C. Kurtz; Lynn Hornsby-Lewis; Hans Gerdes; Edward T. Stewart

BACKGROUND The current practice of removing adenomatous polyps of the colon and rectum is based on the belief that this will prevent colorectal cancer. To address the hypothesis that colonoscopic polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer, we analyzed the results of the National Polyp Study with reference to other published results. METHODS The study cohort consisted of 1418 patients who had a complete colonoscopy during which one or more adenomas of the colon or rectum were removed. The patients subsequently underwent periodic colonoscopy during an average follow-up of 5.9 years, and the incidence of colorectal cancer was ascertained. The incidence rate of colorectal cancer was compared with that in three reference groups, including two cohorts in which colonic polyps were not removed and one general-population registry, after adjustment for sex, age, and polyp size. RESULTS Ninety-seven percent of the patients were followed clinically for a total of 8401 person-years, and 80 percent returned for one or more of their scheduled colonoscopies. Five asymptomatic early-stage colorectal cancers (malignant polyps) were detected by colonoscopy (three at three years, one at six years, and one at seven years). No symptomatic cancers were detected. The numbers of colorectal cancers expected on the basis of the rates in the three reference groups were 48.3, 43.4, and 20.7, for reductions in the incidence of colorectal cancer of 90, 88, and 76 percent, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Colonoscopic polypectomy resulted in a lower-than-expected incidence of colorectal cancer. These results support the view that colorectal adenomas progress to adenocarcinomas, as well as the current practice of searching for and removing adenomatous polyps to prevent colorectal cancer.


Gastroenterology | 2008

Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.

Bernard Levin; David A. Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S. Andrews; Durado Brooks; John H. Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M. Giardiello; Seth N. Glick; David A. Johnson; C. Daniel Johnson; Theodore R. Levin; Perry J. Pickhardt; Douglas K. Rex; Robert A. Smith; Alan G. Thorson; Sidney J. Winawer

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed among men and women and the second leading cause of death from cancer. CRC largely can be prevented by the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps, and survival is significantly better when CRC is diagnosed while still localized. In 2006 to 2007, the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology came together to develop consensus guidelines for the detection of adenomatous polyps and CRC in asymptomatic average-risk adults. In this update of each organizations guidelines, screening tests are grouped into those that primarily detect cancer early and those that can detect cancer early and also can detect adenomatous polyps, thus providing a greater potential for prevention through polypectomy. When possible, clinicians should make patients aware of the full range of screening options, but at a minimum they should be prepared to offer patients a choice between a screening test that primarily is effective at early cancer detection and a screening test that is effective at both early cancer detection and cancer prevention through the detection and removal of polyps. It is the strong opinion of these 3 organizations that colon cancer prevention should be the primary goal of screening.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2012

Colonoscopic Polypectomy and Long-Term Prevention of Colorectal-Cancer Deaths

Ann G. Zauber; Sidney J. Winawer; Michael J. O'Brien; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Benjamin F. Hankey; Weiji Shi; John H. Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Joel F. Panish; Edward T. Stewart; Jerome D. Waye

BACKGROUND In the National Polyp Study (NPS), colorectal cancer was prevented by colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps. We evaluated the long-term effect of colonoscopic polypectomy in a study on mortality from colorectal cancer. METHODS We included in this analysis all patients prospectively referred for initial colonoscopy (between 1980 and 1990) at NPS clinical centers who had polyps (adenomas and nonadenomas). The National Death Index was used to identify deaths and to determine the cause of death; follow-up time was as long as 23 years. Mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas removed was compared with the expected incidence-based mortality from colorectal cancer in the general population, as estimated from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, and with the observed mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with nonadenomatous polyps (internal control group). RESULTS Among 2602 patients who had adenomas removed during participation in the study, after a median of 15.8 years, 1246 patients had died from any cause and 12 had died from colorectal cancer. Given an estimated 25.4 expected deaths from colorectal cancer in the general population, the standardized incidence-based mortality ratio was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.80) with colonoscopic polypectomy, suggesting a 53% reduction in mortality. Mortality from colorectal cancer was similar among patients with adenomas and those with nonadenomatous polyps during the first 10 years after polypectomy (relative risk, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 10.6). CONCLUSIONS These findings support the hypothesis that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents death from colorectal cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.).


CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians | 2008

Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi‐Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology*†

Bernard Levin; David A. Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A. Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S. Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M. Giardiello; Seth N. Glick; Theodore R. Levin; Perry J. Pickhardt; Douglas K. Rex; Alan G. Thorson; Sidney J. Winawer

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed among men and women and the second leading cause of death from cancer. CRC largely can be prevented by the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps, and survival is significantly better when CRC is diagnosed while still localized. In 2006 to 2007, the American Cancer Society, the US Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology came together to develop consensus guidelines for the detection of adenomatous polyps and CRC in asymptomatic average‐risk adults. In this update of each organizations guidelines, screening tests are grouped into those that primarily detect cancer early and those that can detect cancer early and also can detect adenomatous polyps, thus providing a greater potential for prevention through polypectomy. When possible, clinicians should make patients aware of the full range of screening options, but at a minimum they should be prepared to offer patients a choice between a screening test that is effective at both early cancer detection and cancer prevention through the detection and removal of polyps and a screening test that primarily is effective at early cancer detection. It is the strong opinion of these 3 organizations that colon cancer prevention should be the primary goal of screening.


Gastroenterology | 2012

Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Screening and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

David A. Lieberman; Douglas K. Rex; Sidney J. Winawer; Francis M. Giardiello; David A. Johnson; Theodore R. Levin

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic patients can reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. In the United States, colonoscopy has become the most commonly used screening test. Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplasm found during CRC screening. There is evidence that detection and removal of these cancer precursor lesions may prevent many cancers and reduce mortality.1 Howver, patients who have adenomas are at increased risk for eveloping metachronous adenomas or cancer compared with atients without adenomas. There is new evidence that some atients may develop cancer within 3–5 years of colonoscopy nd polypectomy—so-called interval cancers. Ideally, screening and surveillance intervals should be ased on evidence showing that interval examinations preent interval cancers and cancer-related mortality. We have ocused on the interval diagnosis of advanced adenomas as surrogate marker for the more serious end point of cancer ncidence or mortality. In 2006, the United States Multiociety Task Force (MSTF) on CRC issued a guideline on ostpolypectomy surveillance,2 which updated a prior 1997 guideline. A key principle of the 2006 guideline was risk stratification of patients based on the findings at the baseline colonoscopy. The surveillance schema identified 2 major risk groups based on the likelihood of developing advanced neoplasia during surveillance: (1) low-risk adenomas (LRAs), defined as 1–2 tubular adenomas 10 mm, and (2) high-risk adenomas (HRAs), defined as adenoma with villous histology, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 10 mm, or 3 or more denomas. The task force also published recommendations or follow-up after resection of CRC.3 More recently, the British Society of Gastroenterology updated their 2002 surveillance guideline in 2010.4 Their risk stratification differs from the US guideline, dividing patients into 3 groups: low risk (1–2 adenomas 10 mm), intermediate risk (3–4 small adenomas or one 10 mm), nd high risk ( 5 small adenomas or 3 with at least one 10 mm). They recommend that the high-risk group unergo surveillance at 1 year because of concerns about issed lesions at baseline. US guidelines place emphasis on erforming a high-quality baseline examination. In 2008, the STF published screening guidelines for CRC, which inluded recommendations for the interval for repeat colonocopy after negative findings on baseline examination.5 New issues have emerged since the 2006 guideline, including risk of interval CRC, proximal CRC, and the role of serrated polyps in colon carcinogenesis. New evidence suggests that adherence to prior guidelines is poor. The task force now issues an updated set of surveillance recommendations. During the past 6 years, new evidence has emerged that endorses and strengthens the 2006 recommendations. We believe that a stronger evidence base will improve adherence to the guidelines. The 2012 guidelines are summarized in Table 1 and are based on risk stratification principles used in the 2006 guideline. The ensuing discussion reviews the new evidence that supports these guidelines. This guideline does not address surveillance after colonoscopic or surgical resection of a malignant polyp.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 1993

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals after Colonoscopic Removal of Newly Diagnosed Adenomatous Polyps

Sidney J. Winawer; Ann G. Zauber; Michael J. O'Brien; May Nah Ho; Leonard S. Gottlieb; Stephen S. Sternberg; Jerome D. Waye; John H. Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Edward T. Stewart; Joel F. Panish; Fred Ackroyd; Robert C. Kurtz; Moshe Shike

BACKGROUND The identification and removal of adenomatous polyps and post-polypectomy surveillance are considered to be important for the control of colorectal cancer. In current practice, the intervals between colonoscopies after polypectomy are variable, often a year long, and not based on data from randomized clinical trials. We sought to determine whether follow-up colonoscopy at three years would detect important colonic lesions as well as follow-up colonoscopy at both one and three years. METHODS Patients were eligible if they had one or more adenomas, no previous polypectomy, and a complete colonoscopy and all their polyps had been removed. They were randomly assigned to have follow-up colonoscopy at one and three years or at three years only. The two study end points were the detection of any adenoma, and the detection of adenomas with advanced pathological features (defined as those > 1 cm in diameter and those with high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer). RESULTS Of 2632 eligible patients, 1418 were randomly assigned to the two follow-up groups, 699 to the two-examination group and 719 to the one-examination group. The percentage of patients with adenomas in the group examined at one and three years was 41.7 percent, as compared with 32.0 percent in the group examined at three years (P = 0.006). The percentage of patients with adenomas with advanced pathological features was the same in both groups (3.3 percent). CONCLUSIONS Colonoscopy performed three years after colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps detects important colonic lesions as effectively as follow-up colonoscopy after both one and three years. An interval of at least three years is recommended before follow-up colonoscopy after both one and three years. An interval of at least three years is recommended before follow-up examination after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. Adoption of this recommendation nationally should reduce the cost of post-polypectomy surveillance and screening.


The American Journal of Gastroenterology | 2002

Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: Recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Douglas K. Rex; John H. Bond; Sidney J. Winawer; Theodore R. Levin; Randall W. Burt; David A. Johnson; Lynne M. Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A. Lieberman; Jerome D. Waye; James M. Church; John B. Marshall; Robert H. Riddell

Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2000

A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy

Sidney J. Winawer; Edward T. Stewart; Ann G. Zauber; John H. Bond; Howard J. Ansel; Waye Jd; Hall D; Hamlin Ja; Melvin Schapiro; Michael J. O'Brien; Stephen S. Sternberg; Leonard S. Gottlieb

BACKGROUND After patients have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colonoscopic examination or a barium enema is the better method of surveillance. METHODS As part of the National Polyp Study, we offered colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance to patients with newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. Although barium enema was performed first, the endoscopist did not know the results. RESULTS A total of 973 patients underwent one or more colonoscopic examinations for surveillance. In the case of 580 of these patients, we performed 862 paired colonoscopic examinations and barium-enema examinations that met the requirements of the protocol. The findings on barium enema were positive in 222 (26 percent) of the paired examinations, including 139 of the 392 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more polyps were detected (rate of detection, 35 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 31 to 40 percent). The proportion of examinations in which adenomatous polyps were detected by barium enema colonoscopy was significantly related to the size of the adenomas (P=0.009); the rate was 32 percent for colonoscopic examinations in which the largest adenomas detected were 0.5 cm or less, 53 percent for those in which the largest adenomas detected were 0.6 to 1.0 cm, and 48 percent for those in which the largest adenomas detected exceeded 1.0 cm. Among the 139 paired examinations with positive results on barium enema and negative results on colonoscopic examination in the same location, 19 additional polyps, 12 of which were adenomas, were detected on colonoscopic reexamination. CONCLUSIONS In patients who have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, colonoscopic examination is a more effective method of surveillance than double-contrast barium enema.


Gastroenterology | 2009

A Pooled Analysis of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Diagnoses After Colonoscopic Polypectomy

Maria Elena Martinez; John A. Baron; David A. Lieberman; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Sidney J. Winawer; Ann G. Zauber; Ruiyun Jiang; Dennis J. Ahnen; John H. Bond; Timothy R. Church; Douglas J. Robertson; Stephanie A. Smith-Warner; Elizabeth T. Jacobs; David S. Alberts; E. Robert Greenberg

BACKGROUND & AIMS Limited data exist regarding the actual risk of developing advanced adenomas and cancer after polypectomy or the factors that determine risk. METHODS We pooled individual data from 8 prospective studies comprising 9167 men and women aged 22 to 80 with previously resected colorectal adenomas to quantify their risk of developing subsequent advanced adenoma or cancer as well as identify factors associated with the development of advanced colorectal neoplasms during surveillance. RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 47.2 months, advanced colorectal neoplasia was diagnosed in 1082 (11.8%) of the patients, 58 of whom (0.6%) had invasive cancer. Risk of a metachronous advanced adenoma was higher among patients with 5 or more baseline adenomas (24.1%; standard error, 2.2) and those with an adenoma 20 mm in size or greater (19.3%; standard error, 1.5). Risk factor patterns were similar for advanced adenomas and invasive cancer. In multivariate analyses, older age (P < .0001 for trend) and male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.65) were associated significantly with an increased risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, as were the number and size of prior adenomas (P < .0001 for trend), the presence of villous features (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52), and proximal location (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.43-1.98). High-grade dysplasia was not associated independently with metachronous advanced neoplasia after adjustment for other adenoma characteristics. CONCLUSIONS Occurrence of advanced colorectal neoplasia is common after polypectomy. Factors that are associated most strongly with risk of advanced neoplasia are patient age and the number and size of prior adenomas.


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America | 2002

The Advanced Adenoma as the Primary Target of Screening

Sidney J. Winawer; Ann G. Zauber

The advanced adenoma bridges benign and malignant states and may be the most valid neoplastic surrogate marker for present and future colorectal cancer risk. We define the advanced adenoma as an adenoma with significant villous features (>25%), size of 1.0 cm or more, high-grade dysplasia, or early invasive cancer. Prevention studies should demonstrate a high efficacy in reducing the number of advanced adenomas. We should use the advanced adenoma in the evaluation of new screening technology, nutritional interventions, and chemoprevention agents because the advanced adenoma is a more desirable target for screening efficacy than is the more uncommon but life-threatening cancer stage or the more common but early, less significant small adenoma stage.

Collaboration


Dive into the Sidney J. Winawer's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ann G. Zauber

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Paul Sherlock

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John H. Bond

University of Minnesota

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Eileen Friedman

State University of New York Upstate Medical University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Robert C. Kurtz

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Charles J. Lightdale

Columbia University Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bernard Levin

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge