Screening for colorectal cancer

doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)90807-S

The Lancet

Volume 341, Issue 8861, 26 June 1993, Page 1667

https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)90807-S Get rights and content

References (6)

Df Ransohoff et al.
Colonoscopic surveillance after polypeptomy: considerations of cost effectiveness
Ann Intern Med
(1991)
Jv Selby et al.
A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer
N Engl J Med
(1992)
Pa Newcomb et al.
Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality
J Natl Cancer Inst
(1992)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (2)

Comparable survival for young rectal cancer patients, despite unfavourable morphology and more advanced-stage disease
2015, European Journal of Cancer
Citation Excerpt :
In 2013, almost 4000 new cases of rectal cancer were diagnosed in the Netherlands [2]. Rectal cancer mainly affects middle-aged and elderly individuals, with more than 75% of patients being diagnosed at 60 years or older [2,3]. However, during the last several decades, an increasing incidence of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer at the age of 40 years or younger has been observed [4,5].
Young patients with rectal cancer tend to present with more advanced-stage disease and unfavourable tumour morphology. The effects of these tumour characteristics on survival in this particular patient group are unclear.
Population-based data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) were used. Data from patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between 1989 and 2010 were selected. Younger patients (⩽40 years) were compared with middle-aged patients (41–70 years) with respect to disease stage, tumour characteristics, treatment and outcomes. Patients aged older than 70 years were excluded. Relative excess risk (RER) models were used to perform uni- and multivariate survival analyses.
A total of 37.056 patients were included (⩽40 years n = 1.102). Compared with middle-aged patients, young patients were more likely to have stage III (33.8% versus 27.8%) and stage IV (24.3% versus 19.6%) disease (p < 0.001). Young patients also presented more frequently with mucinous tumours (10.8% versus 9.0%), signet cell carcinomas (2.6% versus 0.6%) and poorly differentiated tumours (16.6% versus 12.3%) (p = 0.001). The treatment of stage I–III patients did not differ between the two groups, except regarding adjuvant chemotherapy, which was more often given to young patients (24.3% versus 14.4%, p < 0.001). Young age was a prognostic factor for better survival in stage I–III patients (RER 0.82 CI 0.71–0.94). Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved survival in stage I–III patients (RER 0.76, 95%CI 0.70–0.83). In an exploratory analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy in young stage III and pN1 patients was associated with improved survival.
Young patients present with more advanced disease and have more unfavourable tumour characteristics compared with middle-aged patients. Despite these characteristics, survival rates are equal, and young age is a prognostic factor for better survival. Although the use of adjuvant chemotherapy is controversial, a positive correlation with survival was found in this study.
Rectal cancer among younger Egyptian patients—clinico-pathological features and oncologic outcomes: A single institution experience
2020, Memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology

View full text

LETTERS to the EDITORScreening for colorectal cancer

Colonoscopic surveillance after polypeptomy: considerations of cost effectiveness

Ann Intern Med

A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer

N Engl J Med

Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality

J Natl Cancer Inst

LETTERS to the EDITOR
Screening for colorectal cancer