Cynthia W Ko1,2, V Paul Doria-Rose3, Michael J Barrett4, Aruna Kamineni5, Lindsey Enewold3, Noel S Weiss6. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. cwko@u.washington.edu. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, 356424, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA. cwko@u.washington.edu. 3. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Information Management Services, Inc., Calverton, MD, USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy are both recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, but their relative effectiveness is unclear. We sought to evaluate the ability of each of these two modalities to reduce CRC mortality. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Cases were persons aged 70-85 years who died of CRC and were matched to up to three non-CRC controls. Receipt of endoscopy was ascertained from Medicare claims and endoscopy indication assigned using a validated algorithm. Conditional logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and CRC mortality. We conducted secondary analyses by race, sex, and endoscopist characteristics, and with varying duration of the look-back period. RESULTS: In the initial analysis using all available look-back years, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 35% reduction in CRC mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48, 0.89), while screening colonoscopy was associated with a 74% reduction (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.23, 0.30). Sigmoidoscopy was not associated with any reduction in proximal CRC mortality. The association between colonoscopy and reduced CRC mortality was stronger in the distal than the proximal colon. Results were similar in analyses using a 5-year look-back period. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy was associated with greater reductions in CRC mortality than screening sigmoidoscopy, and with a greater reduction in the distal than the proximal colon. These results provide additional information on the relative benefits of screening for CRC with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy.
PURPOSE: Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy are both recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, but their relative effectiveness is unclear. We sought to evaluate the ability of each of these two modalities to reduce CRCmortality. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Cases were persons aged 70-85 years who died of CRC and were matched to up to three non-CRC controls. Receipt of endoscopy was ascertained from Medicare claims and endoscopy indication assigned using a validated algorithm. Conditional logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and CRCmortality. We conducted secondary analyses by race, sex, and endoscopist characteristics, and with varying duration of the look-back period. RESULTS: In the initial analysis using all available look-back years, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 35% reduction in CRCmortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48, 0.89), while screening colonoscopy was associated with a 74% reduction (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.23, 0.30). Sigmoidoscopy was not associated with any reduction in proximal CRCmortality. The association between colonoscopy and reduced CRCmortality was stronger in the distal than the proximal colon. Results were similar in analyses using a 5-year look-back period. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy was associated with greater reductions in CRCmortality than screening sigmoidoscopy, and with a greater reduction in the distal than the proximal colon. These results provide additional information on the relative benefits of screening for CRC with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Case-control studies; Colonoscopy; Colorectal neoplasm; Mass screening; Sigmoidoscopy
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Joan L Warren; Michael J Barrett; Therese A Stukel; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wendy S Atkin; Rob Edwards; Ines Kralj-Hans; Kate Wooldrage; Andrew R Hart; John M A Northover; D Max Parkin; Jane Wardle; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Cynthia W Ko; Jason A Dominitz; Moni Neradilek; Nayak Polissar; Pam Green; William Kreuter; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Øyvind Holme; Magnus Løberg; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Miguel A Hernán; Eline Aas; Tor J Eide; Eva Skovlund; Jørn Schneede; Kjell Magne Tveit; Geir Hoff Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Charles J Kahi; Heiko Pohl; Laura J Myers; Dalia Mobarek; Douglas J Robertson; Thomas F Imperiale Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Theodore R Levin; Carol Conell; Jean A Shapiro; Shella G Chazan; Marion R Nadel; Joe V Selby Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Hermann Brenner; Michael Hoffmeister; Christa Stegmaier; Gerhard Brenner; Lutz Altenhofen; Ulrike Haug Journal: Gut Date: 2007-06-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Erika S Boroff; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Joseph G Hentz; Jonathan A Leighton; Francisco C Ramirez Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 10.864