Literature DB >> 17079760

Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia.

Jaroslaw Regula1, Maciej Rupinski, Ewa Kraszewska, Marcin Polkowski, Jacek Pachlewski, Janina Orlowska, Marek P Nowacki, Eugeniusz Butruk.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for colorectal-cancer screening are based solely on age and family history of cancer, not sex.
METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the data from a large colonoscopy-based screening program that included 50,148 participants who were 40 to 66 years of age. People 40 to 49 years of age were eligible only if they had a family history of cancer of any type. Of the 43,042 participants 50 to 66 years of age, 13.3% reported a family history of colorectal cancer, as did 66.3% of the 7106 participants who were 40 to 49 years of age. We defined advanced neoplasia as cancer or adenoma that was at least 10 mm in diameter, had high-grade dysplasia, or had villous or tubulovillous histologic characteristics, or any combination thereof. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify associations between participants' characteristics and advanced neoplasia in a primary (or derivation) data set, and we confirmed the associations in a secondary (or validation) data set.
RESULTS: Advanced neoplasia was detected in 2553 (5.9%) participants 50 to 66 years of age and in 243 (3.4%) participants 40 to 49 years of age. The rate of complications during colonoscopy was 0.1%, and no participants died. In the validation set, a logistic-regression model showed that male sex was independently associated with advanced neoplasia (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52 to 1.98; P<0.001). In each age group (40 to 49 years, 50 to 54 years, 55 to 59 years, and 60 to 66 years), the number of persons who would have to undergo colorectal-cancer screening in order to detect one advanced neoplasia was significantly lower in men than in women (23 vs. 36, 17 vs. 28, 12 vs. 22, and 10 vs. 18, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: We detected advanced neoplasia at a significantly higher rate in men than in women, which may warrant refinement of the screening recommendations for colorectal cancer. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17079760     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa054967

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  218 in total

1.  Sex disparity in colonic adenomagenesis involves promotion by male hormones, not protection by female hormones.

Authors:  James M Amos-Landgraf; Jarom Heijmans; Mattheus C B Wielenga; Elisa Dunkin; Kathy J Krentz; Linda Clipson; Antwan G Ederveen; Patrick G Groothuis; Sietse Mosselman; Vanesa Muncan; Daniel W Hommes; Alexandra Shedlovsky; William F Dove; Gijs R van den Brink
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Gender differences in colorectal cancer incidence in the United States, 1975-2006.

Authors:  Peter N Abotchie; Sally W Vernon; Xianglin L Du
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Colorectal cancer incidence trends in the United States and United kingdom: evidence of right- to left-sided biological gradients with implications for screening.

Authors:  Rafael Meza; Jihyoun Jeon; Andrew G Renehan; E Georg Luebeck
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  Modestly increased use of colonoscopy when copayments are waived.

Authors:  Shabnam Khatami; Lei Xuan; Rolando Roman; Song Zhang; Charles McConnel; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 5.  Screening for colorectal cancer: established and emerging modalities.

Authors:  Nikhil Pawa; Tan Arulampalam; John D Norton
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 46.802

6.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Endoscopic management of failed colonoscopy in clinical practice: to change endoscopist, instrument, or both?

Authors:  Sergio Morini; Angelo Zullo; Cesare Hassan; Roberto Lorenzetti; Salvatore M A Campo
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  The quality of colonoscopy services--responsibilities of referring clinicians: a consensus statement of the Quality Assurance Task Group, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

Authors:  Robert H Fletcher; Marion R Nadel; John I Allen; Jason A Dominitz; Douglas O Faigel; David A Johnson; Dorothy S Lane; David Lieberman; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; Deborah P Robin; Paul C Schroy; Robert A Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians with standby specialist support.

Authors:  Sudha Xirasagar; Thomas G Hurley; Lekhena Sros; James R Hebert
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Microbial mucosal colonic shifts associated with the development of colorectal cancer reveal the presence of different bacterial and archaeal biomarkers.

Authors:  L Mira-Pascual; R Cabrera-Rubio; S Ocon; P Costales; A Parra; A Suarez; F Moris; L Rodrigo; A Mira; M C Collado
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 7.527

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.