Literature DB >> 17337649

Potential for colorectal cancer prevention of sigmoidoscopy versus colonoscopy: population-based case control study.

Hermann Brenner1, Jenny Chang-Claude, Christoph M Seiler, Til Stürmer, Michael Hoffmeister.   

Abstract

We aimed to estimate the proportions of colorectal cancer cases that might be prevented by sigmoidoscopy compared with colonoscopy among women and men. In a population-based case control study conducted in Germany, 540 cases with a first diagnosis of primary colorectal cancer and 614 controls matched for age, sex, and county of residence were recruited. A detailed lifetime history of endoscopic examinations of the large bowel was obtained by standardized personal interviews, validated by medical records, and compared between cases and controls, paying particular attention to location of colorectal cancer and sex differences. Overall, 39%, 77%, and 64% of proximal, distal, and total colorectal cancer cases were estimated to be preventable by colonoscopy. The estimated proportion of total colorectal cancer cases preventable by sigmoidoscopy was 45% among both women and men, assuming that sigmoidoscopy reaches the junction of the descending and sigmoid colon only and findings of distal polyps are not followed by colonoscopy. Assuming that sigmoidoscopy reaches the splenic flexure and colonoscopy is done after detection of distal polyps, estimated proportions of total colorectal cancer preventable by sigmoidoscopy increase to 50% and 55% (73% and 91% of total colorectal cancer preventable by primary colonoscopy) among women and men, respectively. We conclude that colonoscopy provides strong protection against colorectal cancer among both women and men. The proportion of this protection achieved by sigmoidoscopy with follow-up colonoscopy in case of distal polyps may be larger than anticipated. Among men, this regimen may be almost as effective as colonoscopy, at least at previous performance levels of colonoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17337649     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0460

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  15 in total

Review 1.  Current state of micro-robots/devices as substitutes for screening colonoscopy: assessment based on technology readiness levels.

Authors:  Silvia C Tapia-Siles; Stuart Coleman; Alfred Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Diagnostic performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening: meta-analysis and modeling.

Authors:  Tobias Niedermaier; Korbinian Weigl; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Elimination of waste: creation of a successful Lean colonoscopy program at an academic medical center.

Authors:  Aneel Damle; Nathan Andrew; Shubjeet Kaur; Alan Orquiola; Karim Alavi; Scott R Steele; Justin Maykel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Effect of acculturation and access to care on colorectal cancer screening in low-income Latinos.

Authors:  Lara S Savas; Sally W Vernon; John S Atkinson; Maria E Fernández
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2015-06

5.  Validity of the process of change for colorectal cancer screening among African Americans.

Authors:  Katherine DuHamel; Yuelin Li; William Rakowski; Parisa Samimi; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2011-06

6.  Eight years of colonoscopic bowel cancer screening in Germany: initial findings and projections.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Lutz Altenhofen; Michael Hoffmeister
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Effect of comorbid conditions on adherence to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Dana J Lukin; Lina H Jandorf; Rayhana J Dhulkifl; Linda D Thélémaque; Jennifer A Christie; Steven H Itzkowitz; Katherine N Duhamel
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  Tailoring colorectal cancer screening by considering risk of advanced proximal neoplasia.

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale; Elizabeth A Glowinski; Ching Lin-Cooper; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Effectiveness of a simplified "patient friendly" split dose polyethylene glycol colonoscopy prep in Veterans Health Administration patients.

Authors:  Benjamin Cohen; Raymond S Tang; Erik Groessl; Ann Herrin; Samuel B Ho
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-10-01

10.  Screening colonoscopy and risk of adverse events among individuals undergoing fecal immunochemical testing in a population-based program: A nested case-control study.

Authors:  Eunate Arana-Arri; Natale Imaz-Ayo; Mari Jose Fernández; Isabel Idigoras; Isabel Bilbao; Luis Bujanda; Fidencio Bao; Enrique Ojembarrena; Ines Gil; Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Isabel Portillo
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 4.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.