Options for screening for colorectal cancer.

W Atkin
{"title":"Options for screening for colorectal cancer.","authors":"W Atkin","doi":"10.1080/00855910310001421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Unlike other types of cancer, there are several options for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The most extensively examined method, faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), has been shown, in three large randomized trials, to reduce mortality from CRC by up to 20% if offered biennally and possibly more if offered every year. Recently published data from the US trial suggest that CRC incidence rates are also reduced by up to 20%, but only after 18 years. In this study, the number of positive slides was associated with the positive predictive value both for CRC and adenomas larger than 1 cm, suggesting that the reduction in CRC incidence was caused by the identification and removal of large adenomas. In this respect, this study supports the concept that removing adenomas prevents CRC. More efficient methods of detecting adenomas include the use of colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Considerable evidence exists from case-control and uncontrolled cohort studies to suggest that endoscopic screening by sigmoidoscopy reduces incidence of distal colorectal cancer. However, in the absence of evidence from a randomized trial, several countries have been reluctant to introduce endoscopic screening. Three trialsare currently in progress (in the UK, Italy and the US) to address this issue. Two of these trials are examining the hypothesis that a single FS screen at around age 55-64 might be a cost-effective and acceptable method for reducing CRC incidence rates. Recruitment and screening are now complete in both studies and the first analysis of results on incidence rates is expected in 2004. Colonoscopy screening at 10-year intervals has recently been endorsed in the US on the basis that the reductions in incidence observed with distal CRC screening can be extrapolated to the proximal colon. However, data are lacking and a pilot study for a trial of the acceptability and efficacy of colonoscopy screening is in progress in the US. It has also been suggested that FOBT testing should be used to detect proximal CRC missed by sigmoidoscopy screening, but the small amount of published data suggest that supplementing FS with FOBT offers very little advantage over FS alone. Other forms of CRC screening are under investigation and represent exciting options for the future. Extraction of DNA from stool is now feasible and a number of research groups have shown high sensitivity for CRC using a panel of DNA markers including mutations in k-ras, APC, p53 and BAT26. Data so far indicate that, with the exception of k-ras, these markers are highly specific and therefore represent a significant improvement over FOBT. Whether these tests will replace or supplement existing methods of screening has yet to be determined. It has been suggested that BAT26, which is a marker of microsatellite instability, a feature of proximal sporadic CRC, might be a useful adjunct to sigmoidoscopy screening. Others have suggested that a test for occult blood should be included with the DNA markers to further increase sensitivity. It is not yet known how sensitive these markers are for adenomas--it is only by detecting adenomas that CRC incidence rates can be reduced. A final exciting new option for screening is virtual colonoscopy (VC), which by screening out people without neoplasia allows colonoscopy to be reserved for patients requiring a therapeutic intervention. The sensitivity of VC for large adenomas and CRC appears to be high, although results vary by centre and there is a steep learning curve. Sensitivity for small adenomas is low, but perhaps it is less essential to find such lesions. Some groups have suggested that virtual colonoscopy might be a useful option for investigating patients who test positive with stool-based screening tests. Whichever CRC screening method is finally chosen (and there is no reason why several methods should not ultimately be available), high quality endoscopy resources will always be required to investigate and treat neoplastic lesions detected.</p>","PeriodicalId":21517,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. Supplement","volume":" 237","pages":"13-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00855910310001421","citationCount":"49","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00855910310001421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49

Abstract

Unlike other types of cancer, there are several options for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The most extensively examined method, faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), has been shown, in three large randomized trials, to reduce mortality from CRC by up to 20% if offered biennally and possibly more if offered every year. Recently published data from the US trial suggest that CRC incidence rates are also reduced by up to 20%, but only after 18 years. In this study, the number of positive slides was associated with the positive predictive value both for CRC and adenomas larger than 1 cm, suggesting that the reduction in CRC incidence was caused by the identification and removal of large adenomas. In this respect, this study supports the concept that removing adenomas prevents CRC. More efficient methods of detecting adenomas include the use of colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Considerable evidence exists from case-control and uncontrolled cohort studies to suggest that endoscopic screening by sigmoidoscopy reduces incidence of distal colorectal cancer. However, in the absence of evidence from a randomized trial, several countries have been reluctant to introduce endoscopic screening. Three trialsare currently in progress (in the UK, Italy and the US) to address this issue. Two of these trials are examining the hypothesis that a single FS screen at around age 55-64 might be a cost-effective and acceptable method for reducing CRC incidence rates. Recruitment and screening are now complete in both studies and the first analysis of results on incidence rates is expected in 2004. Colonoscopy screening at 10-year intervals has recently been endorsed in the US on the basis that the reductions in incidence observed with distal CRC screening can be extrapolated to the proximal colon. However, data are lacking and a pilot study for a trial of the acceptability and efficacy of colonoscopy screening is in progress in the US. It has also been suggested that FOBT testing should be used to detect proximal CRC missed by sigmoidoscopy screening, but the small amount of published data suggest that supplementing FS with FOBT offers very little advantage over FS alone. Other forms of CRC screening are under investigation and represent exciting options for the future. Extraction of DNA from stool is now feasible and a number of research groups have shown high sensitivity for CRC using a panel of DNA markers including mutations in k-ras, APC, p53 and BAT26. Data so far indicate that, with the exception of k-ras, these markers are highly specific and therefore represent a significant improvement over FOBT. Whether these tests will replace or supplement existing methods of screening has yet to be determined. It has been suggested that BAT26, which is a marker of microsatellite instability, a feature of proximal sporadic CRC, might be a useful adjunct to sigmoidoscopy screening. Others have suggested that a test for occult blood should be included with the DNA markers to further increase sensitivity. It is not yet known how sensitive these markers are for adenomas--it is only by detecting adenomas that CRC incidence rates can be reduced. A final exciting new option for screening is virtual colonoscopy (VC), which by screening out people without neoplasia allows colonoscopy to be reserved for patients requiring a therapeutic intervention. The sensitivity of VC for large adenomas and CRC appears to be high, although results vary by centre and there is a steep learning curve. Sensitivity for small adenomas is low, but perhaps it is less essential to find such lesions. Some groups have suggested that virtual colonoscopy might be a useful option for investigating patients who test positive with stool-based screening tests. Whichever CRC screening method is finally chosen (and there is no reason why several methods should not ultimately be available), high quality endoscopy resources will always be required to investigate and treat neoplastic lesions detected.

结直肠癌筛查的选择。
与其他类型的癌症不同,结直肠癌(CRC)有几种筛查方法。在三个大型随机试验中,粪便隐血检测(FOBT)已被证明是研究最广泛的方法,如果每两年进行一次,可将结直肠癌的死亡率降低20%,如果每年进行一次,可能会降低更多。最近公布的来自美国试验的数据表明,结直肠癌的发病率也降低了20%,但仅在18年后。在本研究中,对于CRC和大于1cm的腺瘤,阳性载片数量与阳性预测值相关,提示CRC发病率的降低是由于大腺瘤的发现和切除引起的。在这方面,本研究支持切除腺瘤可预防结直肠癌的观点。更有效的检测腺瘤的方法包括使用结肠镜或柔性乙状结肠镜(FS)。病例对照和非对照队列研究的大量证据表明,乙状结肠镜内窥镜筛查可降低远端结直肠癌的发病率。然而,由于缺乏随机试验的证据,一些国家一直不愿引入内窥镜筛查。为了解决这个问题,目前正在进行三项试验(分别在英国、意大利和美国)。其中两项试验的假设是,在55-64岁左右进行一次FS筛查可能是降低结直肠癌发病率的一种成本效益高且可接受的方法。两项研究的招募和筛查工作现已完成,预计将于2004年对发病率结果进行首次分析。最近在美国,每隔10年进行一次结肠镜筛查已得到认可,其基础是远端CRC筛查所观察到的发病率降低可以外推到近端结肠。然而,数据缺乏,一项关于结肠镜筛查的可接受性和有效性的试点研究正在美国进行中。也有人建议使用FOBT检测来检测乙状结肠镜筛查遗漏的近端结直肠癌,但少量已发表的数据表明,用FOBT补充FS与单独FS相比几乎没有优势。其他形式的结直肠癌筛查正在研究中,代表着未来令人兴奋的选择。从粪便中提取DNA现在是可行的,许多研究小组已经表明,使用一组DNA标记,包括k-ras、APC、p53和BAT26突变,对结直肠癌具有很高的敏感性。迄今为止的数据表明,除k-ras外,这些标记物具有高度特异性,因此比FOBT有显著改善。这些检测是否会取代或补充现有的筛查方法还有待确定。BAT26作为微卫星不稳定性的标志,是近端散发性结直肠癌的一个特征,可能是乙状结肠镜筛查的有用辅助手段。还有人建议,应该在DNA标记中加入潜血检测,以进一步提高灵敏度。目前尚不清楚这些标记物对腺瘤有多敏感——只有通过检测腺瘤才能降低结直肠癌的发病率。最后一个令人兴奋的筛查新选择是虚拟结肠镜检查(VC),通过筛选没有肿瘤的人,结肠镜检查可以保留给需要治疗干预的患者。VC对大腺瘤和CRC的敏感性似乎很高,尽管结果因中心而异,并且有一个陡峭的学习曲线。小腺瘤的敏感性很低,但也许发现这样的病变不是很必要。一些小组建议,虚拟结肠镜检查可能是一种有用的选择,用于调查粪便筛查试验呈阳性的患者。无论最终选择哪种结直肠癌筛查方法(没有理由最终不能使用几种方法),始终需要高质量的内窥镜资源来调查和治疗发现的肿瘤病变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信