Chemoprevention in hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes

Non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and Aspirin for preventing colorectal adenomas and carcinomas

EDITORIAL NOTE

This review was split in 2012 and the review question was to be addressed according to three new protocols: (See: http://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010267.pub2; http://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010291.pub2; http://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010325.pub2). These titles were withdrawn at the protocol stage in 2020 as the authors did not make any progress on the reviews. This original review will no longer be updated and may be superseded by new titles hosted by Cochrane Gut in the future.

BACKGROUND

There is evidence from experimental animals studies, prospective and retrospective observational studies that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) may reduce the development of sporadic colorectal adenomas (CRAs) and cancer (CRC) and may induce the regression of adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to determine the effect of NSAIDS for the prevention or regression of CRAs and CRC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2003 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

NSAIDS and aspirin (ASA) were the interventions. The primary outcomes were the number of subjects with at least one CRA, the change in polyp burden, and CRC. The secondary outcome was adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The data were combined with the random effects model if clinically and statistically reasonable.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials with 150 familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and 24,143 population subjects met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included sulindac, celecoxib, or aspirin (ASA). From the combined results of three trials, significantly fewer subjects in the low dose ASA group developed recurrent sporadic CRAs [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.61, 0.96), (NNT 12.5 (95% CI 7.7, 25)] after one to three years. In another three trials, phenotypic FAP subjects that received sulindac or celecoxib had a greater proportional reduction (range: 11.9% to 44%) in the number of CRAs compared to those in the control group (range: 4.5% to 10%). There was no significant difference for the outcomes of CRC or adverse events in any of the trials.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There was evidence from three pooled RCTs that ASA significantly reduces the recurrence of sporadic adenomatous polyps after one to three years. There is evidence from short-term studies to support regression, but not elimination or prevention of CRAs in FAP.

Hereditary colorectal cancer: keeping it in the family--the bowel cancer story

Up to 20% of colorectal cancers are thought to have a genetic component. Several familial syndromes are known to confer an increased risk for colorectal cancer. Advances in our understanding of these syndromes has improved the care delivered to, and the overall survival of, these patients. Genetic testing has great potential to further improve detection and direct subsequent preventative measures. The diagnosis, management and surveillance issues relating to some of the more commonly encountered syndromes - in particular Familial Adenomatous Polyposis and Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer - are reviewed.

Prevention and chemoprevention of colorectal neoplasms

Main purpose of the review is to analyse the impact of the current approaches for colorectal cancer prevention, including chemoprevention. Available evidence does not support the contention that a more appropriate diet can be of great help in the prevention of these neoplasms, either because the scientific evidence is poor and highly controversial, or because changes in diet are difficult to implement, at least in many Western countries. Similarly, a preventive approach based on the modification of lifestyle remains improbable, either in the short --or in the long period of time. Secondary prevention--i.e., the systematic removal of adenomatous polyps--can hardly be applied in the general population, with the exception of individuals at risk because members of families with Adenomatosis coli or Lynch syndrome, or affected by inflammatory bowel diseases. Finally, chemoprevention (i.e., the attempt to prevent tumour development through the administration of drugs or natural compounds that interfere with various phases of carcinogenesis) is still in its infancy Though attractive, this approach requires well-designed studies which should be carried out for years before being evaluated and interpreted; so far most of these investigations gave inconsistent or controversial results. In conclusion, both primary and secondary prevention of colorectal malignancies appear difficult to apply in the general population, and chemoprevention is still at the beginning of a (presumably] long story. The final impression is that notwithstanding the remarkable advancements made in the last two decades in colorectal cancer research, the practical application of these new concepts remains difficult.

Outcome of primary and secondary ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to present Swedish experiences of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis from the introduction in 1984. The study also compared the surgical and functional outcome of different anal continence preserving procedures: ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery, ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis, and ileorectal anastomosis alone.

METHODS

The material comprises all 120 patients with familial adenomatous polyposis reported to the Swedish Polyposis Registry who had undergone prophylactic colorectal surgery, including those operated on because of colorectal cancer from 1984 until the end of 1996. Anal continence preserving surgery was performed on 102 patients: 20 had ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery at a median age of 24.5 years, 39 had ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery at a median age of 34 years, and 43 had ileorectal anastomosis alone, at a median age of 26 years, because 6 of the initially ileorectal anastomosis-operated patients were converted to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. Surgical outcome was assessed on the basis of hospital records. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the functional outcome. Fisher's exact probability test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in 51 percent of the patients after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: 40 percent after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery and 56 percent after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. When the previous ileorectal anastomosis was taken into account 67 percent of the patients suffered complications which was significantly more compared with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery. After ileorectal anastomosis, 26 percent had complications which was significantly less compared with all other procedures but ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery. No cancer occurred after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, either in the ileal pouch or in retained rectal mucosa, but two of the patients who had an ileorectal anastomosis developed rectal cancer. One pouch excision was performed compared with ten rectal excisions. Functional outcome did not differ between ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as secondary surgery. However, ileorectal anastomosis-operated patients had significantly better bowel function with regard to nighttime stool frequency, continence and perianal soreness.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that major advantages of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are the low excision rate and, so far, no cancer in the ileal pouch. Moreover, the surgical outcome of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis as primary surgery is not significantly different from that of ileorectal anastomosis. However, the good surgical and functional outcome of ileorectal anastomosis, despite the long-range prognosis including rectal cancer and excision risks, has to be taken into consideration when selecting patients with familial adenomatous polyposis for primary surgery.