Literature DB >> 33525283

Colorectal cancer screenings: a single center experience.

Lorenzo Viani1, Paolo Dell'Abate2, Paolo Del Rio3, Federico Marchesi4, Francesco Tartamella5, Matteo Rossini1, Elisa Bertocchi6, Mario Giuffrida1.   

Abstract

AIM: evaluating the impact of screening programmes on colorectal cancer (CRC) in Italy.
METHODS: we studied 1292 patients with colorectal cancer. Data were collected from January 2004 through December 2015 in Parma University Hospital. We compared clinophatological features to evaluate the real impact of screening programmes on detecting early stage colorectal cancers in target population.
RESULTS: screening programmes with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and colonoscopy covered only patients from 50 to 69. In our study we reported that the 52,3% of patients with CRC were over 70 and out of screen time, while only 47,7% were under 70. Early detection seems to be related to early stage of CRC and to an improved overall survival.
CONCLUSION: The importance of early detection in colorectal cancers represents the most important outcome for OS. The risk of colorectal cancer is increased in elderly. Actual screening programmes cover less than 50% of population with colorectal cancer. Screening should be considered for patients over 70, due to the high number of new diagnosis in symptomatic disease and worst prognosis, in accordance with advanced cancer stage and comorbidities in elderly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33525283      PMCID: PMC7927528          DOI: 10.23750/abm.v91i4.8386

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Biomed        ISSN: 0392-4203


Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and lethal disease. The majority of CRC develops slowly from adenomatous polyps or adenomas (1). The risk of developing CRC is influenced by both environmental and genetic factors (2, 3). CRC is the third for incidence and second for cancer deaths in 2015. CRC incidence and mortality rates vary markedly around the world. Globally, CRC is the second most common cancer in females and the third one in males, with 1.65 million new cases and almost 835000 deaths in 2015. In Europe there were 447136 new cases of CRC in 2012 and 214866 deaths (12.2% of the total number of cancer deaths, 2nd most common cause of cancer related deaths). The 5-year prevalence of CRC in 2012 was estimated at 1203943 in Europe. In 2012, the cumulative risk of CRC in people aged under 75 was 1.95% worldwide and 3.51% in Europe (4, 5). In Italy there were 52000 new cases in 2016 and 18756 deaths in 2013. The 5-year survival rate is 60,8% for colon cancer and 58,3 for rectal cancer (6, 7). During the last decades the develop of minimally invasive techniques and the amelioration of surgical strategy (8, 9) contributed to an overall increase in postoperative outcomes, but poorly affecting overall survival. In Italy, before 1999, only one screening programme had been activated (10). The value of screening programmes has been accredited by various international societies. In Italy a structured screening programme started in 2005. Nowadays, screening programmes with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every two years and colonoscopy only with positive FOBT are reserved to people from 50 to 69. In Italy people’s compliance for CRC screening programmes with FOBT increases every year with an adherence of 43% in 2015 (6, 7, 11).

Study Protocol

We retrospectively collected data from a total of 1292 CRC patients who underwent curative surgery at Parma University Hospital from January 2005 through December 2015. In our study we included: 1. Patients with primary CRC; 2. Colorectal cancers screen detected, non-screen detected; 3. Patients who underwent curative surgery with laparoscopic or laparotomic approach. We divided patients into three subgroups according to the time of surgery (2004-2007; 2008-2011; 2012-2015) to evaluate the impact of screening programmes through the years. After curative surgery, all patients were followed through the years or until their death. The follow up of all patients in this study was completed in December 2017.

Statistical Methods

According to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test, the survival analysis and curves were calculated observing postoperative survival time. The chi-square test was used to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Cox proportional hazard model was used for multivariate analyses. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare two or more independent samples, equal or different in sizes. All factors regarded statically significant present a P values <0,05.

Results

Patient characteristics

Among 1292 patients with colorectal cancer, 439 died during the follow-up. 686 (56,7%) were male while 524 (43,3%) were female (Tab. 1).
Table 1.

Sex distribution

GenderNDeaths
Male733266
Female559173
Sex distribution In our study, 611 patients (47,7%) were younger than 69, 670 (52,3%) were older than 70, out of screen time (Tab. 2).
Table 2.

Age distribution

Frequency%Valid %Cumulative %
Age
<=6025119.419.619.6
60-7036027.928.147.7
>7067051.952.3100.0
Total128199.1100.0
Missing110.9
Total1292100.0
Age distribution The most performed procedure was right emicolectomy (522) followed by left emicolectomy (335); anterior rectal resection (RAR) (238), sigmoidectomy (120), transverse colon resection (51) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) (26). The median age at the time of surgery was higher for right emicolectomy thane left emicolectomy (Tab. 3, 4).
Table 3.

Surgical procedure

Surgical procedureTotal NDeaths
Right emicolectomy522179
Left emicolectomy33592
Transverse colon resection5123
Sigmoidectomy12048
RAR23888
APR269
Overall1292439
Table 4.

Median age distribution for cancer site and surgery

Surgical procedureMedian age
Right emicolectomy72.67
Left emicolectomy67.60
Transverse colon resection71.79
Sigmoidectomy69.01
RAR68.21
APR70.42
Surgical procedure Median age distribution for cancer site and surgery According to TNM staging system we found: T1 stage: 108; T2: 240; T3: 774; T4a: 112; T4b:58 N0: 779; N1a-b: 280; N2a-b: 233.

Statistical analysis

In our study 5-year OS was 70%. (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.
On the three periods on examination we found a non-statistically significant stackable OS. (P>00,5) (Fig. 2).
Figure 2.
OS differences in male and female was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (Tab. 5, Fig. 3).
Table 5.

Sex distribution through the years

PeriodTotal
2004-20072008-20112012-2015
GenderMaleCount340207186733
% within gender46.5%28.1%25.4%100.%
% within period60,3%56.3%51.5%56.7%
FemaleCount224160175559
% within gender40.1%28.6%31.3%100.0%
% within period39.7%43.7%48.5%43.3%
TotalCount5643673511292
% within gender43.7%28.3%27.9%100.0%
% within period100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
Figure 3.
Sex distribution through the years We found that only 47.7% of colorectal cancers were detected in screen time. In patients over 70 the incidence of CRC was higher, with an increased number of new diagnosis out of screening programmes and a worst prognosi. (Tab. 2, 6, 7).
Table 6.

Age distribution through the years

PeriodTotal
2004-20072008-20112012-2015
Age<60Count1295567251
% within age51.5%21.7%26.8%100.0%
% within period23.0%15.1%18.6%19.6%
60-70Count17310879360
% within age48.3%29.9%21.8%28.7%
% within period31.6%30.6%22.2%100.0%
>70Count256197217670
% within age38.3%29.5%32.2%100.0%
% within period45.3%54.3%59.2%51.7%
TotalCount5583603631281
% within age43.8%28.1%28.2%100.0%
% within period100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
Table 7.

Vital status by age

Vital StatusTotal
AliveDeaths
Age<60Count20150251
% within age80.2%19.8%100.%
60-70Count240120360
% within age66.6%33.3%100.0%
>70Count401269670
% within age59.8%40.2%100.0%
TotalCount8424391281
% within age65.7%34.3100.0%
Age distribution through the years Vital status by age Lower overall survival for patients over 70 was statistically significant (P=0.032) (Tab. 7, Fig. 4).
Figure 4.

Discussion

Japan, where the incidence of CRC is one of the highest compared to Europe, shows a lower incidence of mortality and this is due to the highly effective screening programmes (17, 18). These observations imply that screening has a significant impact on reducing CRC death rate. A screening test must be well accepted in order to get a highly successful screening programme. The adherence to the screening programme is extremely important for the efficacy of the screening test itself, nevertheless, in practice, adherence to CRC screening is quite variable. In Spain, Quintero in his study reported adherence of 34% for the initial FOBT and 25% for colonoscopy (19). In Italy the participation rates to screening programmes in 2015 was the 43% of target population, 5,1% of them had positive FOBT and 79,6% with positive result accepted colonoscopy. During the same period coloscopic screening programmes showed a worst compliance with only 24% of adhesions in 2016 (6, 7, 11). When the screening programmes started in Italy, the study IMPATTO, including people from 40 to 79 through 2000 to 2008, showed only a little reduction of incidence with remarkable differences among the North-Centre, the South and the Islands (20). Nowadays, improved screening programmes show a reduction of mortality of 13-22% in screen detected areas vs non-screen detected areas, with early stage at the time of diagnosis and better overall survival (21, 22). In Emilia Romagna, screening programme with FOBT started in 2005 (23). Until 2007 adherence to FOBT was only 47,6% of target population (24) with 5,5% of positive FOBT. The 80,2% with positive FOBT accepted colonoscopy. During 2008-2011 the 99,5% of resident population were invited and only 51,6% accepted FOBT. Colonoscopy was performed in 82,6% of the patients with positive FOBT (4,7%) (25). In the last period (2012-2015) in Emilia-Romagna there was an adherence of 50,3% to screening programmes with FOBT, though only 85,4% of the 5,2% with positive FOBT underwent colonoscopy (26). Moreover, based on the results of our study, a 52,3% of patients with CRC were over 70 and out of screen time, presenting a worst prognosis.

Conclusion

Despite the outstanding effect on early stage detection and overall survival, a majority of patients who may benefit from the screening is excluded for age cutoff. Data of our study suggest the possibility to extended the screening programme to patients over 70, in consideration to the increase in life expectancy. Elderly patients in good health and with an expectation of long remaining lifespan, might greatly get benefit from the screening programmes (27). Extending the screening programme until 79 in patients in good health seems to be highly reccomendable, in order to improve early stage CRC detection and OS.
  9 in total

Review 1.  Clinical practice. Adenomatous polyps of the colon.

Authors:  Joel S Levine; Dennis J Ahnen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The necessity of colorectal cancer screening for elderly patients.

Authors:  Shin-Ei Kudo; Toyoki Kudo
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-03-23

3.  Totally laparoscopic right colectomy: theoretical and practical advantages over the laparo-assisted approach.

Authors:  Federico Marchesi; Ferdinando Pinna; Luigi Percalli; Stefano Cecchini; Matteo Riccó; Renato Costi; Vittoria Pattonieri; Luigi Roncoroni
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 1.878

4.  Repeated anastomotic recurrence of colorectal tumors: genetic analysis of two cases.

Authors:  Renato Costi; Cinzia Azzoni; Federico Marchesi; Lorena Bottarelli; Vincenzo Violi; Cesare Bordi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Loss of p27 expression and microsatellite instability in sporadic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Leopoldo Sarli; Lorena Bottarelli; Cinzia Azzoni; Nicoletta Campanini; Gabriella Di Cola; Angela Luciana Barilli; Federico Marchesi; Antonio Mazzeo; Carlo Salvemini; Silvia Morari; Davide Di Mauro; Enrico Donadei; Fransesca Necchi; Luigi Roncoroni; Cesare Bordi
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.279

6.  Screening for colorectal cancer in Italy: 2005 survey.

Authors:  Manuel Zorzi; Alessandra Barca; Fabio Falcini; Grazia Grazzini; Renato Pizzuti; Alessandra Ravaioli; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Carlo Senore; Angelo Sigillito; Marcello Vettorazzi; Carmen Visioli
Journal:  Epidemiol Prev       Date:  2007 Mar-Jun       Impact factor: 1.901

7.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.

Authors:  Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Surgical treatment of multiple sporadic colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Stefano Cecchini; Cinzia Azzoni; Lorena Bottarelli; Federico Marchesi; Francesco Rubichi; Enrico Maria Silini; Luigi Roncoroni
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2017-04-28

9.  Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-years for 32 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Authors:  Christina Fitzmaurice; Christine Allen; Ryan M Barber; Lars Barregard; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Hermann Brenner; Daniel J Dicker; Odgerel Chimed-Orchir; Rakhi Dandona; Lalit Dandona; Tom Fleming; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Jamie Hancock; Roderick J Hay; Rachel Hunter-Merrill; Chantal Huynh; H Dean Hosgood; Catherine O Johnson; Jost B Jonas; Jagdish Khubchandani; G Anil Kumar; Michael Kutz; Qing Lan; Heidi J Larson; Xiaofeng Liang; Stephen S Lim; Alan D Lopez; Michael F MacIntyre; Laurie Marczak; Neal Marquez; Ali H Mokdad; Christine Pinho; Farshad Pourmalek; Joshua A Salomon; Juan Ramon Sanabria; Logan Sandar; Benn Sartorius; Stephen M Schwartz; Katya A Shackelford; Kenji Shibuya; Jeff Stanaway; Caitlyn Steiner; Jiandong Sun; Ken Takahashi; Stein Emil Vollset; Theo Vos; Joseph A Wagner; Haidong Wang; Ronny Westerman; Hajo Zeeb; Leo Zoeckler; Foad Abd-Allah; Muktar Beshir Ahmed; Samer Alabed; Noore K Alam; Saleh Fahed Aldhahri; Girma Alem; Mulubirhan Assefa Alemayohu; Raghib Ali; Rajaa Al-Raddadi; Azmeraw Amare; Yaw Amoako; Al Artaman; Hamid Asayesh; Niguse Atnafu; Ashish Awasthi; Huda Ba Saleem; Aleksandra Barac; Neeraj Bedi; Isabela Bensenor; Adugnaw Berhane; Eduardo Bernabé; Balem Betsu; Agnes Binagwaho; Dube Boneya; Ismael Campos-Nonato; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peggy Chiang; Chioma Chibueze; Abdulaal Chitheer; Jee-Young Choi; Benjamin Cowie; Solomon Damtew; José das Neves; Suhojit Dey; Samath Dharmaratne; Preet Dhillon; Eric Ding; Tim Driscoll; Donatus Ekwueme; Aman Yesuf Endries; Maryam Farvid; Farshad Farzadfar; Joao Fernandes; Florian Fischer; Tsegaye Tewelde G/Hiwot; Alemseged Gebru; Sameer Gopalani; Alemayehu Hailu; Masako Horino; Nobuyuki Horita; Abdullatif Husseini; Inge Huybrechts; Manami Inoue; Farhad Islami; Mihajlo Jakovljevic; Spencer James; Mehdi Javanbakht; Sun Ha Jee; Amir Kasaeian; Muktar Sano Kedir; Yousef S Khader; Young-Ho Khang; Daniel Kim; James Leigh; Shai Linn; Raimundas Lunevicius; Hassan Magdy Abd El Razek; Reza Malekzadeh; Deborah Carvalho Malta; Wagner Marcenes; Desalegn Markos; Yohannes A Melaku; Kidanu G Meles; Walter Mendoza; Desalegn Tadese Mengiste; Tuomo J Meretoja; Ted R Miller; Karzan Abdulmuhsin Mohammad; Alireza Mohammadi; Shafiu Mohammed; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Gabriele Nagel; Devina Nand; Quyen Le Nguyen; Sandra Nolte; Felix A Ogbo; Kelechi E Oladimeji; Eyal Oren; Mahesh Pa; Eun-Kee Park; David M Pereira; Dietrich Plass; Mostafa Qorbani; Amir Radfar; Anwar Rafay; Mahfuzar Rahman; Saleem M Rana; Kjetil Søreide; Maheswar Satpathy; Monika Sawhney; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Masood Ali Shaikh; Jun She; Ivy Shiue; Hirbo Roba Shore; Mark G Shrime; Samuel So; Samir Soneji; Vasiliki Stathopoulou; Konstantinos Stroumpoulis; Muawiyyah Babale Sufiyan; Bryan L Sykes; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; Fentaw Tadese; Bemnet Amare Tedla; Gizachew Assefa Tessema; J S Thakur; Bach Xuan Tran; Kingsley Nnanna Ukwaja; Benjamin S Chudi Uzochukwu; Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov; Elisabete Weiderpass; Mamo Wubshet Terefe; Henock Gebremedhin Yebyo; Hassen Hamid Yimam; Naohiro Yonemoto; Mustafa Z Younis; Chuanhua Yu; Zoubida Zaidi; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Zerihun Menlkalew Zenebe; Christopher J L Murray; Mohsen Naghavi
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 31.777

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.