Risk factors for colorectal adenomas among immediate family members of patients with colorectal cancer in Taiwan: a case-control study

OBJECTIVES: The incidence of colorectal cancer or adenoma among first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer is significantly high. However, a well defined screening and surveillance consensus has not been developed for these families in Taiwan. We conducted this study to evaluate the colorectal adenoma prevalence pattern in screened immediate family members in Taiwan, and to derive implications for future screening programs. METHODS: A total of 234 immediate family members (aged 51.6 +/- 21.5 yr) of 186 patients with colorectal cancer were offered a colonoscopy. Each relative examined was then paired with two control subjects for age, sex, and symptoms. The prevalence of colorectal adenomas was then compared using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The estimated risk of developing adenomas among immediate family members of patients with colorectal cancer was significantly increased (OR = 2.33; 95% CI, 1.43-3.78; p < 0.001). This trend was more striking for men (OR = 2.46; 95% CI, 1.40-4.31; p = 0.001). Immediate family members were at an increased risk for high-risk adenomas (> or = 1.0 cm, with a villous component, and/or with severe dysplasia) (OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 1.91-10.60; p = 0.002), and developed adenomas at an earlier age than did controls. Individuals with index cancer relatives diagnosed at < 50 yr of age or male relatives posed a higher risk of developing colorectal adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of colorectal adenoma in persons with a colorectal cancer family history in Taiwan is similar to that reported in Western countries. This high-risk population should be offered a screening colonoscopy beginning at 40 yr of age.     

First-degree relatives of patients with advanced colorectal adenomas have an increased prevalence of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of colorectal cancer in relatives of patients with adenomatous colonic polyps is not well defined. This study assessed whether finding colonic neoplasia during screening colonoscopy was related to the family history of colorectal cancer among the participants' parents and siblings. METHODS: Self-reported family history of colorectal cancer was recorded for all participants in a screening colonoscopy study. The size and location of all polyps were recorded before their removal and histologic examination. Participants were grouped according to the most advanced lesion detected. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred twenty-one patients underwent complete colonoscopic examination. Subjects with adenomas were more likely to have a family history of colorectal cancer than were subjects without polyps (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.70). The finding of a small (<1 cm) tubular adenoma as the most advanced lesion was associated with only a modest increase in the OR of colorectal cancer in family members (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99-1.61), but the presence of an advanced adenoma was associated with a higher OR (OR, 1.62;5% CI, 1.16-2.26). Younger age of adenoma diagnosis was not related to a higher prevalence of a family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Relatives patients with advanced colorectal adenomas have an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas should be counseled about the increased risk of colorectal cancer among their relatives.     

Prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in smokers

OBJECTIVES: Smoking has been linked with colorectal neoplasia. Previous colonoscopy screening studies have omitted smoking and have examined only gender, age, and family history. Our aim was to use a screening population to measure the prevalence of neoplasia in smokers, the anatomic location of these lesions, and the strength of this association relative to other risk factors. METHODS: Data collected from the charts of 1988 screening colonoscopy patients included colonic findings, histology, risk factors for colorectal neoplasia, and smoking pattern. Current smokers were defined as those who had smoked more than 10 pack-years and were currently smoking or who had quit within the past 10 yr. Our outcomes were any adenomatous lesion and significant colonic neoplasia, which included adenocarcinoma, high grade dysplasia, villous tissue, large (>1 cm) adenomas, and multiple (more than two) adenomas. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that current smokers were more likely to have any adenomatous lesion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.42-2.51; p < 0.001) as well as significant neoplasia (OR = 2.26; 95% CI = 1.56-3.27; p < 0.001) than those who had never smoked. The increased risk for smokers was predominantly for left-sided neoplasia. The risk for significant neoplasia was greater for smokers than for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.75-1.92; p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking is a significant risk factor for colorectal neoplasia in a screening population, especially for significant left-sided lesions. In our sample population, smoking posed a greater risk than family history of colorectal cancer.     

Risk of colorectal adenomas in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer: some implications for screening programmes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most colorectal cancers (CRC) arise in colorectal adenomas. A case-control study was conducted to see whether a family history of CRC is associated with a higher prevalence of colorectal adenomas. SUBJECTS: Subjects were drawn from all patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Royal Brisbane Hospital between 1980-1982 and 1985, and included 141 cases with colorectal adenomas diagnosed at colonoscopy and 882 controls who were free of polyps at colonoscopy. METHODS: The prevalence of family history of CRC was compared between patients with adenomas and negative colonoscopy controls. RESULTS: Overall, patients with one first degree relative with CRC were at no greater risk for adenomas at colonoscopy than patients with no family history (odds ratio (OR) = 0.8, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.4, 1.5). Patients with two or more affected first degree relatives had a more than doubled risk for adenomas (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 0.5, 8.2), and were also more likely to carry moderately or severely dysplastic adenomas (OR = 14.1, 95% CI = 2.0, 62.9). CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that some families, in addition to those with familial adenomatous polyposis, have an increased susceptibility to develop colorectal adenomas, and that adenomas in such families may have a greater tendency to undergo malignant transformation.     

Predictors of proximal neoplasia in patients without distal adenomatous pathology

BACKGROUND: Previous colorectal cancer screening studies have observed that some patients may have advanced proximal neoplasia without distal findings. Since these studies have included only gender, age, and family history as risk factors, they are limited in their ability to identify predictors of isolated proximal neoplasia. METHODS: Data were collected from the charts of 1,988 patients who presented for colonoscopy. Information gathered included endoscopic findings, histology, known risk factors for colorectal neoplasia, and smoking pattern. Our main outcome was the presence of proximal adenomatous neoplasia in patients who had no distal adenomas. We defined significant neoplasia as adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, villous polyps, adenomas 1 cm or greater or more than two adenomas of any size. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients had isolated significant proximal neoplasia that would have been missed on a flexible sigmoidoscopy. While patients older than 60 yr had a greater risk for this neoplasia (odds ratio = 3.01: 95% CI = 1.66-4.23; p < 0.001), those who took a daily aspirin had a reduced risk (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.30-0.88; p < 0.05). A family history of colorectal cancer increased the patient's risk of having any adenomas (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.33-3.40; p < 0.01) or villous tissue (OR = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.27-3.51; p < 0.05) in the proximal colon without distal findings. Smoking was associated with an increased risk of large (> 1 cm) isolated proximal tubular polyps (OR = 2.71; 95% CI = 1.64-4.46; p < 0.01) as well as isolated significant proximal neoplasia (OR = 2.30; 95% CI = 1.59-3.31; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Age greater than 60 yr, a history of at least 10 pack-years of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer increased the risk of finding significant proximal polyps in patients without distal pathology.     

Predictors of advanced proximal neoplasia in persons with abnormal screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The relationship between distal and proximal colonic findings is uncertain. Thus, there is no consensus on which findings on screening flexible sigmoidoscopy should trigger colonoscopy. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to assess the relationship between distal and proximal colonic findings. RESULTS: A total of 8802 subjects had an abnormal baseline sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy follow-up. Subjects with <10-mm single or multiple tubular adenomas had similar risks for advanced proximal neoplasia as subjects with hyperplastic polyps or other benign lesions (3%-5%). Subjects with large (>or=10 mm), villous, or severely dysplastic distal adenomas had similarly elevated risks for advanced proximal neoplasia (11%-12%). Multivariate logistic modeling showed a significantly increased risk for advanced proximal neoplasia associated with the presence of a large tubular (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.4) or villous distal adenoma (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.1-3.5) but not with the presence of one (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3) or multiple (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.2) <10-mm tubular distal adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Among subjects with a polypoid lesion on screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, those with small tubular distal adenomas are at similar risk for advanced proximal neoplasia as those without distal adenomas. Subjects with a large, villous, or dysplastic distal adenoma are at increased risk. A strategy that encourages individuals with small tubular adenomas on sigmoidoscopy to undergo follow-up colonoscopy and excludes those with nonadenomatous lesions is of questionable validity, because both groups are at similar risk for advanced proximal neoplasia.     

Prevalence and risk of colorectal neoplasia in consumers of alcohol in a screening population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although studies suggest a positive association between alcohol consumption and risk for colorectal neoplasia, the impact on screening has not been fully examined. It is also unclear whether all types of alcohol are associated with an increased risk. We performed a cross-sectional study to examine the impact of regular alcohol consumption on the detection of significant colorectal neoplasia in a screening population. METHODS: Data collected for 2,291 patients presenting for screening colonoscopy: known risk factors for colorectal neoplasia and alcohol drinking pattern. Our outcome was the endoscopic detection of significant colorectal neoplasia, which included adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, villous tissue, adenomas 1 cm or greater and multiple (>2) adenomas of any size. RESULTS: When compared to abstainers, we found an increased risk for significant neoplasia in those patients who consumed more than eight drinks of spirits alcohol (26.3%; OR = 2.53; 95% CI = 1.10-4.28; p < 0.01) and those who drank more than eight servings of beer per week (21.7%; OR = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.11-5.32; p= 0.02). Consuming one to eight glasses of wine per week was associated with a decreased risk for significant neoplasia (OR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.34-0.87; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While there was a more than twofold increased risk of significant colorectal neoplasia in people who drink spirits and beer, people who drank wine had a lower risk. In our sample, people who drank more than eight servings of beer or spirits per week had at least a one in five chance of having significant colorectal neoplasia detected by screening colonoscopy.     

New occurrence and recurrence of neoplasms within 5 years of a screening colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE: The fear that colorectal adenomas were missed on initial colonoscopy or that new adenomas have developed is often a rationale for repeating a colonoscopic examination. The aim of this study was to delineate risk factors associated with recurrence of colorectal adenomas after an initial baseline screening colonoscopy. METHODS: The study population comprised 875 subjects who underwent a baseline screening colonoscopy followed by a second examination 1-5 yr later. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the influence of potential risk factors on the occurrence or recurrence of colorectal adenomas, the strength of the influence being expressed as an OR with a 95% CI. RESULTS: Colorectal adenomas were detected in 484 of all patients (55%) at baseline colonoscopy. Within a 1- to 5-yr time interval, 181 patients (37%) had recurrent adenomas (adenomas were removed during the first colonoscopy) and 73 patients (19%) had newly developed adenomas (adenomas were absent on the first colonoscopy). The occurrence of adenomas at baseline screening colonoscopy was the only factor associated with an increased risk for the recurrence of adenomas at follow-up (OR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.77-3.55). Recurrence was associated with multiple baseline adenomas (4.45, 2.98-6.64) and baseline adenomas larger than 1 cm (2.62, 1.99-3.11). Recurrence was not associated with histology type or family history of colorectal cancer. There was a significant trend for adenomas to recur in the same proximal or distal segment as the baseline adenomas (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Colon adenomas tend to recur with greater frequency if the adenomas removed at baseline were either large or multiple. Although patients with large adenomas or multiple adenomas at baseline screening colonoscopy are at a 2.6- to 4.5-fold risk for recurrence of adenomas, the rate of de novo adenoma formation in patients without baseline adenomas may be large enough to warrant repeat colonoscopy at some time in the future. The exact timing of the follow-up colonoscopy needs to be determined.     

Heredity and colorectal cancer

The frequency of colorectal neoplasia was assessed through colonoscopy in 114 patients with a family history of colorectal cancer. In over 90 percent of patients, a first-degree relative was affected. Twenty-one percent of patients who were studied endoscopically were positive for neoplastic disease, including two invasive cancers. Twenty-eight percent of patients had adenomas beyond the splenic flexure. Multiple primary relatives further increased risk with 36 percent positive for neoplasia. Neoplasia was common in young patients, with 25 percent under the age of 40 years positive for adenomas. These findings are identical to recent pedigree studies and further support a genetic basis for common colorectal cancers. First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer should be considered at high-risk for colorectal neoplasia. Screening and surveillance with colonoscopy is recommended.     

Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Outcomes of colon surveillance after colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy are uncertain. We conducted a prospective study to measure incidence of advanced neoplasia in patients within 5.5 years of screening colonoscopy. METHODS: Three thousand one hundred twenty-one asymptomatic subjects, age 50 to 75 years, had screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997 in the Department of Veterans Affairs. One thousand one hundred seventy-one subjects with neoplasia and 501 neoplasia-free controls were assigned to colonoscopic surveillance over 5 years. Cohorts were defined by baseline findings. Relative risks for advanced neoplasia within 5.5 years were calculated. Advanced neoplasia was defined as tubular adenoma greater than > or =10 mm, adenoma with villous histology, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer. RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety-five (76.4%) patients with neoplasia and 298 subjects (59.5%) without neoplasia at baseline had colonoscopy within 5.5 years; 2.4% of patients with no neoplasia had interval advanced neoplasia. The relative risk in patients with baseline neoplasia was 1.92 (95% CI: 0.83-4.42) with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 5.01 (95% CI: 2.10-11.96) with 3 or more tubular adenomas <10 mm, 6.40 (95% CI: 2.74-14.94) with tubular adenoma > or =10 mm, 6.05 (95% CI: 2.48-14.71) for villous adenoma, and 6.87 (95% CI: 2.61-18.07) for adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between results of baseline screening colonoscopy and rate of serious incident lesions during 5.5 years of surveillance. Patients with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas less than 10 mm represent a low-risk group compared with other patients with colon neoplasia.     

Should relatives of patients with colorectal cancer be screened?

PURPOSE: The objective of our investigation was to attempt to address the controversial issue concerning index screening and surveillance of relatives of patients with colorectal cancer and to identify those areas of research that should be considered in future studies. METHODS: Relevant literature was reviewed concerning the screening of asymptomatic first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer not associated with the rare autosomal dominant inherited colorectal cancer syndromes. RESULTS: The data reviewed suggest that there is an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in this population and a significantly higher yield of adenomas and carcinomas when colonoscopy is used for index screening. However, significant variability in study design and screening protocols and inconsistencies in data presentation make clinical interpretation and data analysis confusing and difficult. CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical need for standardization in future studies. Furthermore, as there are no studies that document decreased overall mortality from colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives as a result of screening, the decision as to whether to screen this population needs to be based on future prospective controlled trials.     

Sporadic duodenal adenoma and the association with colorectal neoplasia: a case-control study

OBJECTIVES: Sporadic duodenal adenomas are an uncommon finding. It is not clear whether patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma have a greater risk for colorectal neoplasia and should undergo colonoscopy. The aims of the present study were to estimate the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma, and to compare colorectal neoplasia rates in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas versus those without them.
METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted to identify sporadic duodenal adenoma patients using the databases of two academic and one regional hospital in the Netherlands. Colonoscopic findings in the sporadic duodenal adenoma patients were compared with those of a control group of patients who underwent both gastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. Furthermore, the frequency of colorectal cancer in the sporadic duodenal adenoma patients was compared with the population incidence of colorectal cancer.
RESULTS: During the period 1991–2006, 102 patients in total with sporadic duodenal adenomas were identified. Colonoscopy was performed in 49 patients (48%), and colorectal neoplasia was present in 21 of these patients (43%). There was a significantly higher rate of both colorectal neoplasia (43% vs 17%, odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7–7.4) and advanced colorectal adenoma (18% vs 3%, OR 7.8, 95% CI 2.1–29.4) in the patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma compared to that in the control group. Also, the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in sporadic duodenal adenoma patients compared to that in the population ( P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with sporadic duodenal adenomas appear to be at a significantly higher risk of colorectal neoplasia, and therefore should undergo colonoscopy.     

Colonoscopic screening of persons with suspected risk factors for colon cancer. I. Family history

A family history of colorectal cancer is believed to place persons at increased risk for development of the disease. It is unclear, however, how "strong" a family history must be to increase this risk or to make colonoscopic screening appropriate. We performed initial colonoscopy in 154 asymptomatic subjects whose only suspected risk factor was one or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer; 48 of these subjects also had affected second- and third-degree relatives. We found 45 adenomas in 28 subjects (18%). One subject had a 3-cm villous adenoma. In 6 subjects, the most advanced findings were tubular adenomas 5-9 mm in diameter; in 21 subjects, we found only tubular adenomas that were 2-4 mm in diameter. The prevalence of adenomas increased significantly with age of subjects (p less than 0.01). Although the overall prevalence of colorectal neoplasms in our group was no greater than might be expected in the general population, subjects with two first-degree relatives tended to have more diminutive adenomas than those with one such relative. Our findings suggest that colonoscopy is not an appropriate first step in screening persons with one affected first-degree relative. For those with more complex family histories, more data are needed--particularly on the prevalence of advanced neoplasms--to determine whether a screening technique that is less costly and less invasive than colonoscopy may be adequate.     

Community-based screening by colonoscopy or computed tomographic colonography in asymptomatic average-risk subjects

OBJECTIVES: Visualizing the entire colorectum in screening is an advantage of colonoscopy, and also computed tomographic (CT) colonography, another potentially suitable screening test. Our objective was to compare screening CT colonography and colonoscopy in an asymptomatic average-risk population, and to determine whether providing a choice of tests increased participation. METHODS: One thousand and four hundred subjects from the general community, randomly selected from the parliamentary electoral roll, were allocated one of three screening groups: colonoscopy, CT colonography, or a choice of these tests, and were sent an institutional letter of invitation. Those with symptoms, colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives, or colonoscopy within 5 yr were ineligible. Outcome measures were participation, acceptability of screening, and yield for advanced colorectal neoplasia in participants. RESULTS: Of the subjects, 24.9% were ineligible; the overall participation rate was 18.2% (184/1,009). Participation in each screening group was not different. Both tests were accompanied by the same high levels of acceptability; most participants found colonoscopy (87%) and CT colonography (67%, p < 0.001) less unpleasant than expected. About 29% (26/89) CT colonography subjects had a positive screening test. The yield of advanced colorectal neoplasia was 8.7% (95% CI 5-14%), with no difference in yield between tests. CONCLUSION: Colorectal neoplasia screening by colonoscopy or CT colonography was associated with modest participation, high levels of acceptability, and similar yield for advanced colorectal neoplasia. Providing a choice of test did not increase participation.     

Risk and cause of interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopic polypectomy

Background: To investigate the cause and risk of interval colorectal cancer (ICC) in patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after colonoscopic polypectomy. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data (endoscopy, pathology, demography) of patients who received surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after colonoscopic polypectomy. Results: Among 1,794 patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after colonoscopic polypectomy, 14 suffered from ICC. The mean follow-up time was 2.67 years and the incidence density of ICC was 2.9 cases per 1,000 person-years. 50% of ICCs were found in patients in whom adenomas had been incompletely removed by endoscopic therapy, 36% were missed cancers, and 14% were new cancers. Age >60 years (OR 2.97, 95% CI 2.31-3.82) was significantly associated with interval cancer on the surveillance colonoscopy as were advanced adenoma (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01-1.62), the presence of villous (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03-1.85) and high-grade dysplasia (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.07-2.42). Conclusions: Among patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years after polypectomy, the incidence density of ICC was 2.9 cases per 1,000 person-years. The majority of interval cancers originated from incomplete resection of advanced adenomas and missed cancers, which can be prevented by improving endoscopic techniques and selecting an appropriate follow-up time interval.     

Body mass index: a marker for significant colorectal neoplasia in a screening population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although some studies suggest a positive association between increasing body mass index (BMI) and risk for colorectal neoplasia, the impact on screening has not been examined. We performed a cross-sectional study to examine the association of BMI and colorectal neoplasia in a screening population. METHODS: Data collected for 2493 patients presenting for screening colonoscopy included known risk factors for colorectal neoplasia, demographic information, and lifestyle factors. Our outcome was the endoscopic detection of significant colorectal neoplasia which included adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, villous tissue, adenomas 1 cm or greater and multiple (>2) adenomas of any size. RESULTS: Overall, we observed an increased risk and prevalence for significant colorectal neoplasia in women as BMI increased (P value for trend <0.002). This relationship was the strongest for the women with a BMI > or =40 (odds ratios=4.26; 95% confidence intervals=2.00-9.11). There was no such relationship in our male population. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing BMI, in our population, was associated with an increase risk for colorectal neoplasia in female patients. This study reinforces the importance of screening colonoscopy especially in obese women.     

A cost analysis of screening methodology for family members of colorectal cancer patients

First-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients are at increased risk for this malignancy which, in certain families, has right-sided predilection. For both these reasons, some clinicians recommend colonoscopy as the initial screening examination for these relatives. We used the results of a screening program of families of colon cancer patients to determine whether the tumor yield and costs justified this recommendation. Our study included 468 asymptomatic, first-degree relatives of large bowel neoplasia patients. Of these, 429 had only one relative with colorectal neoplasia and 39 had two or more such relatives. Persons with one affected relative were screened by fecal occult blood and flexible sigmoidoscopy, followed by colonoscopy if either test was positive, whereas colonoscopy was used as the primary screening test for those with two or more relatives with colorectal neoplasia. The comparison group included 452 persons without this family history of large bowel neoplasia. They were screened with fecal occult blood tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Based on a range of costs in the United States, and taking into account the hypothetical increased yield of screenees with neoplasia detected if colonoscopy was used as the primary screening examination, calculations of costs indicate that screening asymptomatic adults by colonoscopy is markedly (4-fold) more cost-effective if they have two or more first-degree colon cancer relatives. Otherwise, screening families with only 1 affected relative by flexible sigmoidoscopy, together with fecal occult blood, would seem the most economic method.     

伺机性筛查新模式在结直肠肿瘤患者一级亲属中的探索性研究

目的探究结直肠病房筛查新模式在结直肠肿瘤患者一级亲属筛查的有效性。 方法采用结直肠肿瘤风险问卷评分、粪便潜血免疫化学检测（FIT）以及粪便多靶点FIT-DNA检测对2019年10月至2021年7月在中国医学科学院肿瘤医院结直肠外科就诊的结直肠癌及进展期腺瘤患者的一级亲属进行检测，根据检测结果将一级亲属进行筛查风险分层以及肠镜检查推荐分类，分析不同分层分类后一级亲属的肠镜依从率与病变检出率。 结果共250名受试者被纳入本研究。总体人群肠镜依从率为38.0%（95/250），肠镜病变检出率为9.5%（9/95）；高风险人群（A类推荐人群）肠镜依从率为78.9%（15/19），肠镜病变检出率为26.7%（4/15）；中风险人群（B类推荐人群）肠镜依从率为61.2%（30/49），肠镜病变检出率为16.7%（5/30）；低风险人群（C类推荐人群）肠镜依从率为27.5%（50/182），肠镜病变检出率为0（0/50）。 结论三种筛查方法联合使用可以高效精准地区分一级亲属的筛查风险，此方案是一个可以在病房开展的有效可行的结直肠肿瘤患者一级亲属人群的伺机性筛查新模式。     

Risk factors for the development of pancreatic cancer in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Approximately 10% of pancreatic cancers are inherited, but the factors that affect tumorigenesis in familial pancreatic cancer are unknown. We sought to determine whether smoking or other factors could predict cancer risk in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study including 251 members of 28 families. All families included 2 or more members with pancreatic cancer. We determined the effects of smoking, young age of onset within the family, diabetes mellitus, sex, and number/standing of affected relatives on the risk of pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Smoking was an independent risk factor for familial pancreatic cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-7.6), and the risk was greatest in males and subjects younger than 50 (OR, 5.2 and OR, 7.6, respectively). Smokers developed cancer 1 decade earlier than nonsmokers (59.6 vs. 69.1 years; P = 0.01), and the number of affected first-degree relatives also increased risk (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9 for each additional family member). Diabetes was not a risk factor for pancreatic cancer, although diabetes was associated with pancreatic dysplasia. One third of families demonstrated genetic anticipation, as the mean age of onset decreased by 2 decades between generations. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking is a strong risk factor in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds, particularly among males and those under age 50. Persons with multiple affected first-degree relatives are also at increased risk. These factors may be useful in selecting candidates for pancreatic cancer screening. Members of families with multiple pancreatic cancers should be counseled not to smoke.     

Increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in korean patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas: a case-control study

Background/Aims

Recent data from Western populations have suggested that patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas are at a higher risk for the development of colorectal neoplasia. In this study, we compared the frequency of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas to healthy control subjects.

Methods

This retrospective case-control study used the databases of 3 teaching hospitals in Gyeonggi-do Province, South Korea. The colonoscopy findings of patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas were compared with those of age- and gender-matched healthy individuals who had undergone gastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies during general screening examinations.

Results

Between 2001 and 2008, 45 patients were diagnosed endoscopically with sporadic duodenal adenomas; 26 (58%) of these patients received colonoscopies. Colorectal neoplasia (42% vs 21%; odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 7.4) and advanced colorectal adenoma (19% vs 3%; OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 1.6 to 50.0) were significantly more common in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas than in healthy control subjects.

Conclusions

Compared with healthy individuals, patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas were at a significantly higher risk for developing colorectal neoplasia. Such at-risk patients should undergo routine screening colonoscopies.