Search

Background: The UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs., Objectives: To examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies., Design: Retrospective multicentre cohort study., Setting: Routine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals ( n  = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts ( n  = 2352), followed up using cancer registries., Subjects: Patients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas)., Primary Outcomes: Advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up., Methods: The effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost-utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups ( n  = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance., Results: In the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup ( n  = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup ( n  = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain., Conclusions: A single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients., Study Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Aim: Antioxidants, such as vitamin A, C and E, selenium and β-carotene, have been proposed as possible agents in the chemoprevention of colorectal cancer and have been the subject of recent trials and reviews. This review aimed to assess the present evidence on the effect of antioxidants on the incidence of colorectal neoplasms in the general population., Method: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was undertaken comparing antioxidants alone or in combination with other agents vs placebo. The following databases were searched for published and unpublished literature: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Biological Abstracts and Research Registers. Studies were quality appraised and extracted. Meta-analysis was performed., Results: Twelve studies were identified as relevant. In the nine comparing antioxidants with no antioxidants (n=148 922), there was no difference in the incidence of colorectal cancer [relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.13]. One study assessed the effect of antioxidants on adenoma formation (n=15 538) and did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.97-2.23). Of 14 discrete analyses for different combinations of antioxidants, only one reported a statistically significant increase in relative risk of adenoma formation in participants receiving vitamin E (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.09-1.79, P=0.02) or vitamin E plus β-carotene (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01-2.63, P=0.04). Effectiveness did not seem to differ between healthy populations, participants with cardiovascular risk factors or populations exposed to smoking or asbestos., Conclusion: The review demonstrates that antioxidants (vitamin A, C and E, selenium and β-carotene), as single agents, in combination with other antioxidants or in combination with other agents, are not effective in the chemoprevention of colorectal neoplasia in the general population. This questions their involvement in future randomized controlled trials of chemoprevention in colorectal cancer., (© 2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Objective: The aim of the review was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of calcium in reducing the recurrence of adenomas and the occurrence of colorectal cancer among populations at high, intermediate, and low risk of the disease., Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to compare calcium alone, and with other agents, versus placebo. Nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Biological Abstracts, the National Research Register, and Current Controlled Trials) were searched for published and unpublished trials. Searches were not restricted by either language or date of publication. All searches were completed in January 2010. Database thesaurus and free text terms for calcium and adenomas or colorectal cancer were used to search for trial reports; additional terms were used to search for other agents of interest, such as NSAIDs and folic acid. Search terms consisted of a combination of terms for colorectal cancer (eg, colon or colorectal and neoplasm or cancer or adenoma) and terms for calcium and RCTs. The initial searches were conducted in June 2008, with update searches in January 2010 to identify more recent studies. The reference lists of relevant studies were also searched for additional papers not identified by the search of electronic databases. Studies had to satisfy the following criteria to be included: RCTs about calcium, with or without other chemopreventive agents, in adults with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, or a history of colorectal adenomas, or with no increased baseline risk of colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis was performed. For discrete and numerical outcomes, relative risks (RRs) and risk differences were reported with 95% CIs. The random-effects model was used to account for clinical and methodologic variations between trials., Results: The original and update searches of electronic databases produced 3835 citations, of which 6 studies (8 papers) met the inclusion criteria. Supplemental calcium had no effect on the number of adenomas in 1 small trial of patients with FAP. Meta-analysis of 3 trials in individuals with a history of adenomas showed a statistically significant reduction in the RR for adenoma recurrence (RR = 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.94], P = 0.006) for those receiving calcium 1200 to 2000 mg/d, but no effect was seen in advanced adenoma (RR = 0.77 [95% CI, 0.501.17], P = NS). Meta-analysis of 2 trials in populations with no increased baseline risk for colorectal cancer suggested that calcium, with or without vitamin D, had no effect on the RR for colorectal cancer (RR = 0.62 [95% CI, 0.11-3.40], P = NS)., Conclusion: Published reports indicated that supplemental calcium was effective for the prevention of adenoma recurrence in populations with a history of adenomas, but no similar effect was apparent in populations at higher or lower risk., (Copyright 2010 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Folic acid has been identified as a possible agent for the chemoprevention of colorectal cancer., Aim: To assess the effectiveness of folic acid in reducing the recurrence of adenomas (precursors of colorectal cancer) among populations with a history of adenomas and the incidence of colorectal cancer within average-risk populations., Methods: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing folic acid alone, or with other agents, vs. placebo. Eight databases were searched for relevant trials. Meta-analysis was performed., Results: The literature search retrieved 3785 citations. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of three studies in individuals with a history of adenomas showed no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of adenoma recurrence (RR 0.93, P = 0.27). A sensitivity analysis of the two higher quality trials changed the direction of effect (RR 1.16, P = 0.11). Meta-analysis of three trials in general populations demonstrated no statistically significant effect on the relative risk of colorectal cancer (RR 1.13, P = 0.54). In all three analyses, outcome event rates were higher in individuals receiving folic acid., Conclusion: There is no evidence that folic acid is effective in the chemoprevention of colorectal adenomas or colorectal cancer for any population.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK: incidence increases with age, median age at diagnosis being over 70 years. Approximately 25% of cases occur in individuals with a family history of CRC, including 5% caused by familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or hereditary non-polyposis CRC (HNPCC). Most develop from adenomatous polyps arising from the intestine lining. Individuals with these polyps undergo polypectomy and are invited for endoscopic surveillance. Screening via faecal occult blood testing has been rolled out across the UK. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drug and micronutrient interventions for the prevention of CRC and/or adenomatous polyps. Interventions considered include: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors; folic acid; calcium; vitamin D and antioxidants (including vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium and beta-carotene). Chemoprevention was assessed in the general population, in individuals at increased risk of CRC, and in individuals with FAP or HNPCC. Data sources: A systematic review identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing drug and nutritional agents for the prevention of CRC or adenomatous polyps. A separate search identified qualitative studies relating to individuals’ views, attitudes and beliefs about chemoprevention. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, NHS-EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), HTA database, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS previews and the Current Controlled Trials research register were searched in June 2008. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Review methods: The synthesis methods used were systematic review and meta-analysis for RCTs and qualitative framework synthesis for qualitative studies. A health economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention for two populations with different levels of risk of developing CRC: the general population and an intermediate-risk population. Results: The search identified 44 relevant RCTs and six ongoing studies. A small study of aspirin in FAP patients produced no statistically significant reduction in polyp number but a possible reduction in polyp size. There was a statistically significant 21% reduction in risk of adenoma recurrence [relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.92] in an analysis of aspirin versus no aspirin in individuals with a history of adenomas or CRC. In the general population, a significant 26% reduction in CRC incidence was demonstrated in studies with a 23-year follow-up (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97). Non-aspirin NSAID use in FAP individuals produced a non-statistically significant reduction in adenoma incidence after 4 years of treatment and follow-up and reductions in polyp number and size. In individuals with a history of adenomas there was a statistically significant 34% reduction in adenoma recurrence risk (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.72) and a statistically significant 55% reduction in advanced adenoma incidence (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.58). No studies assessed the effect of non-aspirin NSAIDs in the general population. There were no studies of folic acid in individuals with FAP or HNPCC. There was no significant effect of folic acid versus placebo on adenoma recurrence (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39) or advanced adenoma incidence in individuals with a history of adenomas. In the general population there was no significant effect of folic acid on risk of CRC (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.64), although studies were of relatively short duration. Calcium use by FAP patients produced no significant reduction in polyp number or disease progression. In individuals with a history of adenomas there was a statistically significant 18% reduction in risk of adenoma recurrence (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98) and a non-significant reduction in risk of advanced adenomas (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.17). In the general population there was no significant effect of calcium on risk of CRC (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.34), although studies were of relatively short duration. There were no studies of antioxidant use in individuals with FAP or HNPCC, and in individuals with a history of adenomas no statistically significant differences in relative risk of adenoma recurrence were found. In the general population there was no difference in incidence of CRC (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13) with antioxidant use compared with no antioxidant use. Twenty studies reported qualitative findings concerning chemoprevention. People are more likely to use NSAIDs if there is a strong perceived need. Perceptions of risk and benefit also influence decision-making and use. People have fewer concerns about using antioxidants or other supplements, but their perception of the benefits of these agents is less well-defined. The model analysis suggested that the most cost-effective age-range policy in the general population would be to provide chemoprevention to all individuals within the general population from age 50 to 60 years. The use of aspirin in addition to screening within the general population is likely to result in a discounted cost per life-year gained of around £10,000 and a discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of around £23,000 compared with screening alone. In the intermediate-risk group the most economically viable age-range policy would be to provide chemoprevention to individuals following polypectomy aged 61 to 70 years. Calcium is likely to have a discounted cost per QALY gained of around £8000 compared with screening alone. Although aspirin in addition to screening should be more effective and less costly than screening alone, under the current assumptions of benefits to harms of aspirin and calcium, aspirin is expected to be extendedly dominated by calcium. Limitations: Whilst a number of studies were included in the review, the duration of follow-up was generally insufficient to detect an effect on cancer incidence. Given the uncertainties and ambiguities in the evidence base, the results of the health economic analysis should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Aspirin and celecoxib may reduce recurrence of adenomas and incidence of advanced adenomas in individuals with an increased risk of CRC and calcium may reduce recurrence of adenomas in this group. COX-2 inhibitors may decrease polyp number in patients with FAP. There is some evidence for aspirin reducing the incidence of CRC in the general population. Both aspirin and NSAIDs are associated with adverse effects so it will be important to consider the risk–benefit ratio before recommending these agents for chemoprevention. The economic analysis suggests that chemoprevention has the potential to represent a cost-effective intervention, particularly when targeted at intermediate-risk populations following polypectomy.

Background: The UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs. Objectives: To examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies. Design: Retrospective multicentre cohort study. Setting: Routine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals (n = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts (n = 2352), followed up using cancer registries. Subjects: Patients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas). Primary outcomes: Advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up. Methods: The effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost–utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups (n = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance. Results: In the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup (n = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup (n = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain. Conclusions: A single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.