Article

Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty.

Keenan ResearchCentre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, andDivision of General Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 06/2012; 30(21):2664-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.4772
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We designed this study to evaluate the association of colonoscopy with colorectal cancer (CRC) death in the United States by site of CRC and endoscopist specialty.
We designed a case-control study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. We identified patients (cases) diagnosed with CRC age 70 to 89 years from January 1998 through December 2002 who died as a result of CRC by 2007. We selected three matched controls without cancer for each case. Controls were assigned a referent date (date of diagnosis of the case). Colonoscopy performed from January 1991 through 6 months before the diagnosis/referent date was our primary exposure. We compared exposure to colonoscopy in cases and controls by using conditional logistic regression controlling for covariates, stratified by site of CRC. We determined endoscopist specialty by linkage to the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile. We assessed whether the association between colonoscopy and CRC death varied with endoscopist specialty.
We identified 9,458 cases (3,963 proximal [41.9%], 4,685 distal [49.5%], and 810 unknown site [8.6%]) and 27,641 controls. In all, 11.3% of cases and 23.7% of controls underwent colonoscopy more than 6 months before diagnosis. Compared with controls, cases were less likely to have undergone colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.43); the association was stronger for distal (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.27) than proximal (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.64) CRC. The strength of the association varied with endoscopist specialty.
Colonoscopy is associated with a reduced risk of death from CRC, with the association considerably and consistently stronger for distal versus proximal CRC. The overall association was strongest if colonoscopy was performed by a gastroenterologist.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
62 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This State of the Art Lecture was presented at an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Topic Forum entitled Novel Methods for Polyp Detection on May 4, during the 2014 Digestive Disease Week (DDW) meetings in Chicago. The Topic Forum covered five papers. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) showed that L-Menthol sprayed onto the colonic mucosa increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) from 42.6% to 60.2% (p=0.0083).
    Journal of Interventional Gastroenterology. 06/2014; 42(4:2):43-46.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published population-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs evaluating the difference in mortality and incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) between a screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) group and control group (not assigned to screening FS) with a minimum 5 years median follow-up were identified by a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials through August 2013. Random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Four RCTs with a total of 165659 patients in the FS group and 249707 patients in the control group were included in meta-analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that there was a 22% risk reduction in total incidence of CRC (RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.74-0.83), 31% in distal CRC incidence (RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.63-0.75), and 9% in proximal CRC incidence (RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.83-0.99). Those who underwent screening FS were 18% less likely to be diagnosed with advanced CRC (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.71-0.94). There was a 28% risk reduction in overall CRC mortality (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.65-0.80) and 43% in distal CRC mortality (RR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.45-0.72). This meta-analysis suggests that screening FS can reduce the incidence of proximal and distal CRC and mortality from distal CRC along with reduction in diagnosis of advanced CRC.
    World journal of gastroenterology : WJG. 12/2014; 20(48):18466-76.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundA large proportion of US Medicare beneficiaries undergo earlier-than-recommended follow-up colonoscopies after negative screening colonoscopy. Such practice entails substantial cost and added risk.AimsTo compare the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) associated with varying follow-up colonoscopy intervals following a negative colonoscopy, and to determine whether the potential benefit of a shorter colonoscopy follow-up interval would differ by gender.Methods We conducted a weighted cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database (1991–2006) among 932 370 Medicare enrollees who are representative of the entire US elderly population. We compared the cumulative incidence of CRC among patients who underwent follow-up colonoscopies at different intervals following a negative colonoscopy. The primary outcome was incident CRC.ResultsThe eligible study cohort (n = 480 864) included 106 924 patients who underwent ≥1 colonoscopy. Men were more likely to require polypectomy during their initial colonoscopy than women. Compared to the recommended 9–10 year follow-up colonoscopy interval, an interval of 5–6 years was associated with the largest CRC cumulative risk reduction [i.e. 0.17% (95% CI: 0.009–0.32%)]. The magnitude of risk reduction associated with shorter colonoscopy follow-up intervals was not significantly different between men and women.Conclusions Among elderly individuals who undergo a negative colonoscopy, the magnitude of reduction in the cumulative CRC risk afforded by earlier-than-recommended follow-up colonoscopy is quite small, and probably cannot justify the risk and cost of increased colonoscopy frequency. In addition, there are insufficient differences between men and women to warrant gender-specific recommendations.
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 08/2014; · 4.55 Impact Factor