Practice parameters for the detection of colorectal neoplasms--supporting documentation. The Standards Task Force. AmericanSociety of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Rectosigmoid findings are not associated with proximal colon cancer: Analysis of 6196 consecutive cases undergoing total colonoscopy

AIM: To review the risk of proximal colon cancer in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS: We estimated the risk of advanced proximal adenomas and cancers in 6196 consecutive patients that underwent colonoscopy (mean age 60 years, 65% males, without prior history of colorectal examination). Neoplasms were classified as diminutive adenoma (5 mm or less), small adenoma (6-9 mm), advanced adenoma (10 mm or more, with villous component or high-grade dysplasia) and cancer (invasive adenocarcinoma). The sites of neoplasms were defined as rectosigmoid (rectum and sigmoid colon) and proximal colon (from cecum to descending colon).

RESULTS: The trend of the prevalence of advanced proximal adenoma was to increase with severe rectosigmoid findings, while the prevalence of proximal colon cancer did not increase with severe rectosigmoid findings. Among the 157 patients with proximal colon cancer, 74% had no neoplasm in the rectosigmoid colon. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis revealed that age was the main predictor of proximal colon cancer and existence of rectosigmoid adenoma was not a predictor of proximal colon cancer.

CONCLUSION: Sigmoidoscopy is inadequate for colorectal cancer screening, especially in older populations.

Relationship between age and site of colorectal cancer based on colonoscopy findings

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer occurs more frequently in older people. Because the population of aged persons is increasing, a better understanding of the characteristics of colorectal cancer with respect to age would be useful. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is any relationship between the site of colorectal adenoma and adenocarcinoma in the colon and age.

METHODS

Colonoscopy was performed (September 1995 to December 1998) on 2942 consecutive patients (1907 men, 1035 women; mean age 61 years, range 11 to 95 years) with no history of colorectal adenoma, adenocarcinoma, or inflammatory bowel disease. The occurrence of colorectal neoplasia, histologically proven as adenoma or adenocarcinoma, was analyzed for a possible association between site in the colon and patient age.

RESULTS

Adenocarcinoma was found in 191 patients (196 lesions). The proportion of patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma increased with patient age: < 50 years, 15% (2/13); 50 to 59 years, 21% (8/39); 60 to 69 years, 32% (18/57); 70 to 79 years, 42% (25/49); > or =80 years, 57% (16/28). The proportion of patients with right-sided adenoma did not significantly differ among age groups: < 50 years, 40% (98/246); 50 to 59 years, 41% (280/678); 60 to 69 years, 46% (459/1001); 70 to 79 years, 53% (270/508); and > or =80 years, 57% (87/152).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of right-sided colon cancer increases with patient age. Hence, colonoscopy may be indicated in the elderly for colorectal cancer screening. Over half of colon carcinomas may be missed if sigmoidoscopy alone is used for screening.

Importance of adenomas 5 mm or less in diameter that are detected by sigmoidoscopy

BACKGROUND

The need for colonoscopy in patients with adenomas 5 mm or less in diameter that are detected by sigmoidoscopy is controversial.

METHODS

We prospectively determined the prevalence of proximal colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients at average risk for colorectal cancer, each of whose index lesion on screening fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy was a benign adenoma. Polyps found on sigmoidoscopy underwent biopsy, and colonoscopy was recommended to all patients with neoplastic polyps. Rectosigmoid adenomas were classified as diminutive (< or = 5 mm in diameter), small (6 to 10 mm in diameter), or large (> or = 11 mm in diameter).

RESULTS

Of 3496 consecutive patients referred for sigmoidoscopy, 311 had neoplastic rectosigmoid polyps; 108 of these patients were excluded from the analysis because of a history of colonic neoplasia, symptoms, prior colonic evaluation, or incomplete follow-up data. The remaining 203 patients made up the study group, and all underwent colonoscopy. Neoplasms were found in the proximal colon in 40 of 137 patients (29 percent) with diminutive index polyps, 15 of 52 patients (29 percent) with small index polyps, and 8 of 14 patients (57 percent) with large index polyps. Advanced neoplasms (adenomas > or = 10 mm in diameter, adenomas with a villous component or moderate-to-severe dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, or frank carcinoma) were found in 8 patients (6 percent), 5 patients (10 percent), and 4 patients (29 percent), respectively. Two patients with diminutive index polyps had proximal carcinoma in situ, and two had proximal stage I carcinomas; one patient with a large index polyp had proximal stage III carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The substantial prevalence of proximal colonic neoplasms, including advanced lesions, in asymptomatic average-risk patients with rectosigmoid adenomas < or = 5 mm in diameter warrants colonoscopy in these patients.

Colon surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

This study was performed to determine cost-effective colonoscopy guidelines for patients with prior colorectal adenocarcinoma.

METHOD

A retrospective review was performed of patients who had been treated for colorectal adenocarcinoma and later underwent follow-up colonoscopy from 1984 to 1994.

RESULTS

During this study period, 389 patients previously treated for colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent follow-up colonoscopy. All patients had perioperative colon evaluation for other neoplasms. Ages ranged from 26 to 89 (mean, 65.8) years, and 46.8 percent were female. Recurrent or metachronous cancer or a neoplastic polyp constituted a positive examination. Results of 389 first follow-up colonoscopies were compared with 259 second (66.6 percent), 165 third (42.4 percent), and 83 fourth (21.3 percent) follow-up examinations. Median interval between all colonoscopies was 13 months. Positive examination rates for the first two yearly examinations were 18.3 and 18.5 percent, respectively. Slightly lower, third-year and fourth-year positive examination rates were 16.4 and 14.5 percent, respectively. Four-year examinations yielded the following: first year--1 carcinoid, a new adenocarcinoma, and 100 polyps; second year--1 anastomotic recurrence and 68 polyps; third year --55 polyps; and fourth year--1 recurrent cancer and 17 polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that 1) annual follow-up colonoscopy for two years after colorectal cancer surgery is beneficial for detecting recurrent and metachronous neoplasms and 2) the interval between subsequent examinations may be increased depending on the result of the most recent examination.

Prospects for the secondary prevention of colorectal cancer: screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy?

It may be useful to draw an analogy between the proposed screening programme for colorectal cancer and the cervical cancer screening programme. Both tumours show a spectrum of histological abnormalities consistent with a premalignant phase. The natural history of these premalignant lesions is poorly understood and although some will progress, if untreated, to invasive disease, most will not. Light microscopy cannot confidently distinguish which cases will progress and which will regress, and clinicians are therefore obliged to treat all. This will result in the destruction of many lesions of uncertain malignant potential. The secondary prevention of cervical cancer, although therapeutically efficacious, is inefficient. A lack of understanding of the natural history of intraepithelial neoplasia has frustrated attempts to develop rational referral criteria, and it is only now that the appropriate trials are being undertaken. The development of outpatient investigative and therapeutic procedures has resulted in many more women being referred for investigation and treatment, with predictable pressure on other services offered by gynaecologists, but no demonstrable saving of life. Similar uncertainties surround a screening programme for colorectal cancer. The principal concerns are not about the efficacy of polypectomy in interrupting the polyp cancer sequence, although uncertainties about the frequency with which cancer arises de novo do require that the effectiveness of this intervention is formally tested. Our major concerns are with compliance, and the management of the individual who tests positive--that is, who is found to have a distal polyp. Technological advances and operator enthusiasm may, as has happened with the cervical screening programme, lead to a relaxation in the indications for further investigation and treatment. Such a development would affect resources substantially if a population screening programme were in place. Nevertheless, there are grounds for believing that a screening programme for colorectal cancer, using sigmoidoscopy, might be successful in certain age groups if compliance was satisfactory. The scale of benefits may be comparable with those achieved by the breast screening programme. Our limited cost analysis, which relates to only to specific items of clinical activity, suggest that the mean cost for each case of cancer prevented will be about 8000 pounds sterling. These conclusions suggest that screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy merits serious consideration. It is also imperative, however, that consideration should be given to resolving some of the uncertainties about the clinical management and surveillance of those found to have distal polyps.

Medical malpractice involving colon and rectal disease: a 20-year review of United States civil court litigation

To determine objectively the causes of malpractice litigation involving colon and rectal disease, a retrospective review was undertaken of all cases tried in the U.S. federal and state civil court system over a 21-year period from 1971 through 1991. Ninety-eight malpractice cases were identified from a computerized legal data base, involving 103 allegations of negligence. Allegations fell into five major categories: 1) failure to timely diagnose disease, principally colorectal cancer and appendicitis (n = 44/103; 43 percent); 2) iatrogenic colon injury (n = 25/103; 24 percent); 3) iatrogenic medical complications during diagnosis or treatment (n = 16/103; 15 percent); 4) sphincter injury with fecal incontinence, resulting from anorectal surgery or midline episiotomy (n = 10/103; 10 percent); and 5) lack of informed consent, especially regarding extent of procedures or risk of endoscopy (n = 8/103; 8 percent). These data may aid in design of risk prevention strategies related to the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal disease.