Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1185_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
17 Мб
Скачать
☆
330 D. Demetriades and A. Salim
Distal Rectal Washout
Distal rectal irrigation was added to the management of rectal injuries during the Vietnam War, when Lavenson and Cohen reported a decrease in morbidity from 72% to 10% with its use. Since then, there have been supporters of rectal washout
46,41,43,59
as well as nonsupporters.
39,42,46,52,66
The over­all value of distal washout is questionable. It has been sug­gested that there may be a benefit in patients with high velocity wounds, pelvic fractures.
39,44
and in patients with rectal injuries from
68,69
However, this remains controversial. The authors do not recommend distal bowel irrigation. There is no proven benefit, and it may be associated with a high risk of infection because of spillage of intraluminal contents out of unrepaired rectal injuries.
56
Rectal Repair
The addition of rectal repair to colostomy was also introduced during the Vietnam War. without a diverting colostomy is infrequently performed for extraperitoneal injuries. not technically feasible, with some series reporting successful repair in only 20%–37% of cases. performed, no outcome advantage has been proven. Attempts at repair are associated with extensive dissection and unnecessary contamination of the peritoneal cavity. Attempts at repair should only be made when the rectal injury is encountered during the exposure of an associated injury such as bladder or iliac vessel, or if the injury is easily acces­sible at the peritoneal reflection. As previously mentioned, injuries that are easily accessible from the transanal route may also be repaired with excellent results.
45
However, rectal repair with or
53
In the majority of cases, repair is
39,43,52
Even when repair is
47
39,42,43
Miscellaneous Options
Although extremely rare, abdominoperineal resection has been described for patients with severe bleeding, massive tis­sue loss, or devascularizing injuries.
40,63,70
Recent reports have introduced laparoscopy in the management of rectal injuries.
71,72
In a prospective study of 20 patients with extra­peritoneal rectal injuries, laparoscopy (to rule out an intraperi­toneal injury), followed by a diverting loop sigmoid colostomy without laparotomy yielded excellent results.
72
Associated Injuries
Associated injuries are often seen with rectal injuries and have been reported to occur in as many as 77% of cases. Genitourinary, and in particular bladder injuries, are usually the most frequently seen associated injuries, occurring in 30%–64% of cases.
39,42,46
Every effort should be made to close both injuries and separate both sites with well-vascularized tis­sue such as omentum. This should reduce the high incidence of rectovesical fistula, which can occur in up to 24% of patients with combined bladder and rectal injuries
52,73
(Figure 22-3).
39,53
45
FIGURE 22-3. Rectovesical fistula after repair of a gunshot wound involving the rectum and the bladder. Every effort should be made to separate the two organs with vascularized tissue such as omentum, to reduce the risk of this complication.
Wound Management
The incidence of wound sepsis in patients with colon or rec­tal injury is high. In a prospective study of 100 patients with gunshot wounds and routine skin closure, the wound infection rate was 11%.
3
Primary wound closure in the presence of severe fecal spillage is a significant risk factor for wound sep­sis and fascia dehiscence. This high-risk group of patients is best managed by delayed primary closure of the skin 3–5 days postoperatively.
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
In view of the high incidence of septic complications in patients with colon injuries, appropriate antibiotic prophy­laxis is critical. It is a standard practice to cover against both aerobes and anaerobes. In early studies, the combination of penicillin/aminoglycoside/metronidazole was a popular antibiotic choice. Subsequent studies showed that in pene­trating abdominal trauma, single agents were as good as combination antibiotics. able studies included a large number of fairly minor or mod­erately severe abdominal injuries and only a small number of severe colon injuries with extensive fecal spillage. The reported overall incidence of intraabdominal abscess in
74,75
However, practically all avail-
22. Colon and Rectal Trauma and Rectal Foreign Bodies 331
abdominal trauma series is about 3%75whereas in severe colon injuries is about 19%.
6
The AAST destructive colon injury study identified single-antibiotic-agent prophylaxis as an independent risk factor for abdominal sepsis. The overall incidence of abdominal septic complications was 31% in patients who received single-agent prophylaxis and 16% in patients who received combination antibiotics (adjusted RR,
1.78; 95% CI, 1.12–2.67; P = .02). Further comparison of the two agents used for single antibiotic prophylaxis (cephalosporin versus ampicillin/sulbactam) showed an abdominal infection rate of 37% in the cephalosporin group and 22% in the ampicillin/sulbactam group (crude RR, 1.67; 95% C1, 0.93–2.99; P = .07). It is possible that although sin­gle agents may be effective in minor or moderate trauma, they might be suboptimal in severe colon injuries. It is also possible that it might be necessary to cover against Enterococcus. Weigelt et al.
76
in a prospective, randomized study of 595 abdominal trauma patients compared ampi­cillin/sulbactam with cefoxitin. The wound infection rate was significantly lower with ampicillin/sulbactam. The study suggested that the lower infection rate with ampicillin/sul­bactam was attributable to better Enterococcus coverage. The issue of antibiotic coverage in colon injuries merits further investigation. The authors’ current choice is ampicillin/sul­bactam prophylaxis in all suspected abdominal hollow vis­cous injury.
The duration of antibiotic prophylaxis has been a controver­sial issue. There is now class I evidence that 24-hour prophy­laxis is at least as effective as prolonged prophylaxis for 3–5 days, even in the presence of major risk factors for abdominal sepsis, such as colon injury, multiple blood transfu­sions, and high Abdominal Trauma Index. In a prospective, randomized study of 63 patients with penetrating colon injuries and associate Abdominal Trauma Index >25 or > 6 units of blood transfusions or delay of operation >6 hours, Cornwell
7
et al.
reported an abdominal infection complication rate of 19% in patients who received 24 hours’ antibiotic prophylaxis and 38% in patients who received 5 days’ prophylaxis.
With respect to rectal injuries, no study has addressed the type or length of antibiotic therapy. In the available studies that have even mentioned antibiotics, length of therapy has been at least 2 days using single or double agents covering both aerobes and anaerobes.
39,67,72
It is the authors’ preference to use ampicillin/sulbactam for prophylaxis in all patients with rectal injuries.
young person. In addition, the incidence of complications directly related to the ostomy construction is a significant one. The most common serious complications include necrosis, retraction, prolapse, parastomal abscess, and parastomal hernia. Less serious complications include troublesome skin irritation and poor location with difficulties in the application
77
of the collection bag. Park et al.
in a series of 528 stomas created for trauma reported an incidence 22% of severe or minor early complications and 3% of late complications directly related to the stoma.
The morbidity of colostomy closure is significant (Figure 22-4). In a collective review of 809 colostomy closures in trauma patients during the period 1970–1990, the overall inci­dence of colon-related complications was 13.1% (major com­plications 5.3%; minor complications 7.8%).
37
Another study
of 110 colostomy closures reported an overall local compli-
78
cation rate of 14.5%, including 2.7% colon leaks.
In a more recent collective review of 1085 colostomy closures, the overall complication rate was 14.8%.
79
The timing of colostomy closure does not seem to have an important role in the incidence of complications. Early stud­ies had suggested colostomy closure should be performed after 3 months from the original operation to allow time for the colostomy to “mature.”
80,81
Subsequent studies showed that closure of the stoma earlier than 3 months is safe and not associated with increased complication rates.
78,82
More recent studies even recommended closure during the same admis­sion of the injury, which is usually within 2 weeks of the colostomy construction.
83
The optimal time for colostomy closure should be individualized and time should be allowed for wound healing and nutritional recovery. This might
Trauma Ostomy Complications
When deciding about the method of management of a colon or rectal injury, the surgeon should take into account the prob­lems related to the creation of a stoma and later on the com­plications associated with the subsequent operation for colostomy closure. The presence of an ostomy is in itself a sig­nificant emotional trauma, especially in an image-conscious
FIGURE 22-4. End colostomy in the presence of a complicated abdominal wound with protruding mesh. Closure of this colostomy is a high-risk procedure.
332 D. Demetriades and A. Salim
require only a few weeks for some patients or many months in severely injured patients.
Rectal Foreign Bodies
Rectal foreign bodies represent an uncommon cause of rectal injury, accounting for <5% of cases More often, patients present to the hospital with a retained for­eign body. These patients present an unusual, yet surprisingly common management dilemma. removed in the emergency department; however, a small per­centage of patients will require general anesthesia and opera­tive management with or without laparotomy. In a review of 87
39,42,52
(see Figure 22-5).
84
Most objects can be safely
patients presenting with a retained foreign body at the authors’ institution, 75% were successfully retrieved at the bedside whereas 8% required laparotomy with colotomy for foreign
85
body extraction.
The only independent risk factor for opera­tive intervention was if the foreign body was located in the sigmoid colon (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.1–4.4; P = .04).
Patients with a history of retained foreign body who present with peritonitis should be taken directly to the operating room. Without peritonitis, patients should have an attempt at retrieval at the bedside. If unsuccessful, patients should be taken to the operating room with an attempt at transanal extraction under intravenous sedation. As mentioned previously, patients most likely to require operative intervention are those with the for­eign body located in the sigmoid colon.
85
The use of grasping
FIGURE 22-5. A–C Rectal foreign bodies of various shapes and sizes.
22. Colon and Rectal Trauma and Rectal Foreign Bodies 333
forceps should be avoided because it may lead to rectal mucosal injury. If transanal extraction is unsuccessful, then a laparotomy should be performed to maneuver the foreign body into the rectum for transanal removal.
86
If this is unsuccessful,
then a colotomy may be necessary for foreign body retrieval.
References
1. George SM, Fabian TC, Voeller GR, et al. Primary repair of colon injuries: a prospective trial in nonselected patients. Ann Surg 1989;209:728–734.
2. Chappuis CW, Frey DJ, Dietzen CD, Panetta TP, Buechter KJ, Cohn I. Management of penetrating colon injuries. A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 1991;213:492–497.
3. Demetriades D, Charalambides D, Pantanowitz D. Gunshot wounds of the colon: role of primary repair. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992;74:381–384.
4. Ivatury RR, Gaudino J, Nallathambi MN, Simon RJ, Kazigo ZJ, Stahl WM. Definitive treatment of colon injuries: a prospective study. Am Surg 1993;59:43–49.
5. Gonzalez RP, Merlotti GJ, Holevar MR. Colostomy in penetrat­ing colon injury: is it necessary? J Trauma 1996;41:271–275.
6. Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan L, et al. Penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: Diversion or primary anastomosis? An AAST prospective multicenter study. J Trauma 2001;50: 765–773.
7. Cornwell EE, Velmahos GC, Berne TV, et al. The fate of colonic suture lines in high-risk trauma patients: a prospective analysis. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187:58–63.
8. Demetriades D, Velmahos G, Cornwell E, et al. Selective nonop­erative management of gunshot wounds of the anterior abdomen. Arch Surg 1997;132:178–183.
9. Velmahos G, Demetriades D, Foianini E, et al. A selective approach to the management of gunshot wounds of the back. Am J Surg 1997;174:342–346.
10. Demetriades D, Rabinowitz B, Sofianos C, et al. The manage­ment of penetrating injuries of the back. A prospective study of 230 patients. Ann Surg 1988;207:72–74.
11. Ross SE, Cobean RA, Hoyt DB, et al. Blunt colonic injury: a multicenter review. J Trauma 1992;33:379–384.
12. Ciftci AO, Tanyel FC, Salman AB, et al. Gastrointestinal tract perforation due to blunt abdominal trauma. Pediatr Surg Int 1998;13:259–264.
13. Munns J, Richardson M, Hewett P. A review of intestinal injury from blunt abdominal trauma. Aust N Z Surg 1995;65: 857–860.
14. Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Malangoni MA, et al. Organ injury scal­ing. II. Pancreas, duodenum, small bowel, colon, and rectum. J Trauma 1990;30:1427–1429.
15. Elkin DC, Ward WC. Gunshot wounds of the abdomen: survey of 238 cases. Ann Surg 1943;118:780–787.
16. Ogilvie WH. Abdominal wounds in the Western desert. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1944;78:225–238.
17. Stone HH, Fabian TC. Management of perforating colon trauma: randomization between primary closure and exteriorization. Ann Surg 1979;190:430–436.
18. Schrock TR, Christensen N. Management of perforating injuries of the colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1972;135:65–68.
19. Kirkpatrick JR. Management of colonic injuries. Dis Colon Rectum 1974;17:319–321.
20. Sasaki LS, Allaben RD, Golwala R, Mittal VK. Primary repair of colon injuries: a prospective randomized study. J Trauma 1995; 39:895–901.
21. Gonzalez RP, Falimirsky ME, Holevar MR. Further evaluation of colostomy in penetrating colon injury. Am Surg 2000;66:342–347.
22. Baker LW, Thomson SR, Chadwick SJ. Colon wound manage­ment and prograde colonic lavage in large bowel trauma. Br J Surg 1990;77:872–876.
23. Pezin ME, Vestrup JA. Canadian attitudes toward use of primary repair in management of colon trauma: a survey of 317 members of the Canadian Association of General Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:40–44.
24. Eshraghi N, Mallins R, Mayberry JC, Brand DM, Crass RA, Trunkey DD. Surveyed opinion of American Trauma Surgeons in management of colon injuries. J Trauma 1998;44:93–97.
25. Stewart RM, Fabian TC, Groce MA, Pritchard FE, Minord G, Kadsk KA. Is resection with primary anastomosis following destructive colon wound always safe? Am J Surg 1994;168: 316–319.
26. Murray JA, Demetriades D, Colson M, et al. Colon resection in trauma: colostomy versus anastomosis. J Trauma 1999;46: 250–254.
27. Pasquale M, Fabian TC. EAST Ad Hoc Committee. Practice management guidelines for trauma from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma 1998;44:941–947.
28. Demetriades D, Lawson HH, Sofianos C, Oosthuizen MM, Kurstjens S, Frolich J. Healing of the right and left colon. An experimental study. S Afr Med J 1988;73:657–658.
29. Sofianos C, Demetriades D, Oosthuizen MM, Becker PJ, Hunter S. The effect of hypovolemia on healing of the right and left colon. An experimental study. S Afr J Surg 1992;30:42–43.
30. Deute CJ, Tyburski J, Wilson RF, Collinge J, Steffies C, Coerlin A. Ostomy as a risk factor for posttraumatic infection in pene­trating colonic injuries: univariate and multivariate analyses. J Trauma 2000;49:628–637.
31. Burch JM, Martin RR, Richardson RJ, et al. Evolution of the treatment of the injured colon in the 1980’s. Arch Surg 1991; 126:979–984.
32. Flint LM, Vitale GC, Richardon JD, et al. The injured colon: relationships of management to complications. Ann Surg 1981;193:619–623.
33. Ivatury RR, Nallathambi M, Rao P, Stahl WM. Penetrating pan­creatic injuries. Analysis of 103 consecutive cases. Am Surg 1990;56:90–95.
34. Velmahos GC, Degiannis E, Wells M, Souter I. Penetrating ureteral injuries: the impact of associated injuries on manage­ment. Am Surg 1996;62:461–468.
35. Morgado PJ, Alfaro R, Morgado PJ Jr, et al. Colon trauma: clin­ical staging for surgical decision making. Analysis of 119 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:986–990.
36. Demetriades D, Charalambides D. Gunshot wounds of the colon: role of retained bullets in sepsis. Br J Surg 1993;80:772–773.
37. Curran TJ, Borzotta AP. Complications of primary repair of colon injury: literature review of 2,964 cases. Am J Surg 1999; 177:42–47.
38. Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan LS, et al. Handsewn versus stapled anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries requiring resec­tion: a multicenter study. J Trauma 2002;52:117–121.
39. Burch JM, Feliciano DV, Mattox KL. Colostomy and drainage for civilian rectal injuries: is that all? Ann Surg 1989;209: 600–611.
334 D. Demetriades and A. Salim
40. Grasberger RC, Hirsch EF. Rectal trauma: a retrospective analy­sis and guidelines for therapy. Am J Surg 1983;145:795–799.
41. Shannon FL, Moore EE, Moore FA, McCroskey BL. Value of distal colon washout in civilian rectal trauma: reducing gut bac­terial translocation. J Trauma 1988;28:989–994.
42. Tuggle D, Huber PJ. Management of rectal trauma. Am J Surg 1984;148:806–808.
43. Mangiante EC, Graham AD, Fabian TC. Rectal gunshot wounds: management options in penetrating rectal injuries. Am Surg 1986;52:37–40.
44. Morken JJ, Kraatz JJ, Balcos EG, et al. Civilian rectal trauma: a changing perspective. Surgery 1999;126:693–700.
45. Lavenson GS, Cohen A. Management of rectal injuries. Am J Surg 1971;122:226–231.
46. Thomas DD, Levison MA, Dykstra BJ, Bender JS. Management of rectal injuries: dogma versus practice. Am Surg 1990;56:507–510.
47. Levine JH, Longo WE, Pruitt C, et al. Management of selected rectal injuries by primary repair. Am J Surg 1996;172:575–579.
48. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Cornwell EE, et al. Gunshot wounds to the buttocks: predicting the need for operation. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:307–311.
49. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Cornwell EE. Transpelvic gun­shot wounds: routine laparotomy or selective management? World J Surg 1998;22:1034–1038.
50. Brunner RG, Shatney CH. Diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of rec­tal trauma: blunt versus penetrating. Am Surg 1987;53:215–219.
51. Aihara R, Blansfield JS, Millham FH, et al. Fracture locations influence the likelihood of rectal and lower urinary tract injuries in patients sustaining pelvic fractures. J Trauma 2002;52:205–209.
52. Ivatury RR, Licata J, Gunduz Y, et al. Management options in penetrating rectal injuries. Am Surg 1991;57:50–57.
53. Velmahos GC, Gomez H, Falabella A, Demetriades D. Operative management of civilian rectal gunshot wounds: simpler is better. World J Surg 2000;24:114–118.
54. McGrath V, Fabian TC, Croce MA, et al. Rectal trauma: man­agement based on anatomic distinctions. Am Surg 1998;64: 1136–1141.
55. Ogilvie WH. Abdominal wounds in the Western desert. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1944;78:225–238.
56. Trunkey D, Hays RJ, Shires GT. Management of rectal trauma. J Trauma 1973;13:411–415.
57. Taylor ER, Thompson JE. The early treatment, and results thereof, of injuries of the colon and rectum. Int Abstr Surg 1948; 87:209–228.
58. Woodhall JP, Ochsner A. The management of perforating injuries of the colon and rectum in civilian practice. Recent Adv Surg 1949;20:305–321.
59. Vitale GC, Richardson JD, Flint LM. Successful management of injuries to the extraperitoneal rectum. Am Surg 1983;49:159–162.
60. Bartizal JF, Boyd DR, Folk FA, et al. A critical review of man­agement of 392 colonic and rectal injuries. Dis Colon Rectum 1974;17:313–318.
61. Maxwell RA, Fabian TC. Current management of colon trauma. World J Surg 2003;27:632–639.
62. Rombeau JL, Wilk PJ, Turnbull RB, Fazio VW. Total fecal diver­sion by the temporary skin-level loop transverse colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1978;21:223–226.
63. Haas PA, Fox TAJ. Civilian injuries of the rectum and anus. Dis Colon Rectum 1979;22:17–23.
64. Armstrong RG, Schmitt HJ, Patterson LT. Combat wounds of the extraperitoneal rectum. Surgery 1983;74:570–583.
65. Weil PH. Injuries of the retroperitoneum portions of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:19–21.
66. Levy RD, Strauss P, Aladgem D, et al. Extraperitoneal rectal gunshot injuries. J Trauma 1995;38:274–277.
67. Gonzalez RP, Falimirski ME, Holevar MR. The role of presacral drainage in the management of penetrating rectal injuries. J Trauma 1998;45:656–661.
68. Maull KI, Sachatello CR, Ernst CB. The deep perineal laceration: an injury frequently associated with open pelvic fractures—a need for aggressive surgical management. J Trauma 1977;17:685–696.
69. Richardson JD, Harty J, Amin M, et al. Open pelvic fractures. J Trauma 1982;22:533–538.
70. Getzen LC, Pollack EG, Wolfman EF. Abdominoperineal resec­tion in the treatment of devascularizing rectal injuries. Surgery 1977;82:310–313.
71. Navsaria PH, Graham R, Nicol A. A new approach to extraperi­toneal rectal injuries: laparoscopy and diverting loop sigmoid colostomy. J Trauma 2001;51:532–535.
72. Navsaria PH, Shaw JM, Zellweger R, et al. Diagnostic laparoscopy and diverting sigmoid loop colostomy in the man­agement of civilian extraperitoneal rectal gunshot injuries. Br J Surg 2004;91:460–464.
73. Franko ER, Ivatury RR, Schwalb DM. Combined penetrating rectal and genitourinary injuries: a challenge in management. J Trauma 1993;34:347–353.
74. Hooker KD, Dipiro JT, Wynn JJ. Aminoglycoside combinations versus beta-lactams alone for penetrating abdominal trauma: a meta-analysis. J Trauma 1991;31:1155–1160.
75. Sims EH, Thadepalli H, Ganesan K, Mandal AK. How many antibiotics are necessary to treat abdominal trauma victims? Am Surg 1997;63:525–535.
76. Weigelt JA, Easley SM, Thal ER, Palmer LD, Newman VS. Abdominal surgical wound infection is lowered with improved perioperative enterococcus and bacteroides therapy. J Trauma 1993;34:579–585.
77. Park JJ, Del Pino A, Orsay CP, et al. Stoma complications: the Cook County Hospital experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42: 1575–1580.
78. Demetriades D, Pezikis A, Melissas J, Parekh D, Pickles G. Factors influencing the morbidity of colostomy closure. Am J Surg 1988;155:594–596.
79. Berne JD, Velmahos GC, Chan LS, Asensio JA, Demetriades D. The high morbidity of colostomy closure after trauma: further support for the primary repair of colon injuries. Surgery 1998;123:157–164.
80. Frend H, Raniel J, Maggia-Sulaw W. Factors affecting the mor­bidity of colostomy closure. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:712–715.
81. Parks S, Hastings P. Complications of colostomy closure. Am Surg 1985;149:672–675.
82. Renz BM, Feliciano DV, Sherman R. Same admission colostomy closure (SACC): a new approach to rectal wounds—a prospec­tive study. Ann Surg 1993;3:279–283.
83. Velmahos GC, Degiannis E, Weels M, Souter I, Saadia R. Early closure of colostomies in trauma patients: a prospective random­ized trial. Surgery 1995;118:815–820.
84. Barone JE, Yee J, Nealon TF. Management of foreign bodies and trauma of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983;156: 453–457.
85. Lake JP, Essani R, Petrone P, et al. Management of retained col­orectal foreign bodies: predictors of operative intervention. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:1694–1698.
23
Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Etiology, and Molecular Basis
Nancy N. Baxter and Jose G. Guillem
Epidemiology
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease with a major worldwide burden. It is the fourth most frequently diagnosed malignancy in both sexes with almost 1 million people developing CRC annually. death in the world, responsible for 630,000 deaths annually. In the United States, CRC is the third most common cancer in men and women and the second most common cause of can­cer death overall. CRC accounts for 11% of cancers diag­nosed. the United States in 2004 and that there will be 57,000 deaths from the disease.
the worldwide incidence of CRC was only 500,000. Western countries, some of the increase is attributable to the aging of the population; however, in countries with a low baseline rate of CRC, an increase in incidence after adjustment for age has been found. Before 1985, the age­adjusted incidence of CRC in the United States had been increasing; however, since this time, the rates have declined an average of −1.6% per year has been mainly confined to the Caucasian race and is largely limited to a decrease in the incidence of distal can­cers. Therefore, the recent decrease in incidence in the United States may be attributable to screening, specifically screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy, tors are likely to have influenced this trend. The incidence of proximal cancers has remained relatively stable over the same time period. individual developing CRC in United States over a lifetime is almost 6%.
risk factor for CRC. CRC is predominantly a disease of older individuals; 90% of cases are diagnosed over the age of 50. The risk of CRC continues to increase with age (Figure 23-2). The incidence per 100,000 people aged 80–84 is more than 7 times the incidence in people aged 50–54. However, CRC can
1
CRC is the third most common cause of cancer
3
It is estimated that 147,000 cases will be diagnosed in
3
The worldwide incidence of CRC is increasing; in 1975,
4
In
5
(Figure 23-1). This reduction
6
although other fac-
5,6
Currently, the overall probability of an
3
From a population perspective, age is the most important
occur at any age and the incidence of CRC occurring in patients younger than age 40 may be increasing.
7
In the United States the risk of CRC differs by gender. The incidence of CRC is more than 40% higher in men than women.
5
Overall, the incidence of CRC in men is 64 per
100,000 males as compared with 46 per 100,000 females.
2
addition, the ratio of colon to rectal cancer differs in the United States by gender; the ratio of colon to rectal cases for women is 3:1 as compared with 2:1 for males.
3
Race and ethnicity influence CRC risk; Ashkenazi Jewish individuals seem to be at a slightly increased risk of CRC. least part of this increased incidence may be attributable to a higher prevalence of the I1307K mutation of the adenomatous polyposis gene, a mutation that confers an increased risk of CRC development. The I1307K mutation is found in 6.1% of unselected Ashkenazi Jewish individuals and 28% of Jewish individuals with CRC populations.
10
9
whereas the mutation is rare in other
In the United States, the incidence of CRC is higher in African-Americans of either gender as compared with Caucasians. Asian American/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Hispanic Americans experience a lower inci­dence of CRC than Caucasians
3,11
(Table 23-1). African­Americans have not experienced the substantial reduction in incidence of CRC found to have occurred in Caucasians; before 1980, incidence in African-Americans was actually lower than in Caucasians. In African-Americans, the increased rate of cancer is predominantly attributable to a higher rate of proximal cancers.
12–14
The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry (a National Cancer Institute population-based cancer registry representing 14% of the population in the United States) reports cancer incidence and stage over time (Table 23-2). Between 1992 and 1999 for all patients diagnosed with CRC, 38% of patients were diagnosed with localized disease, 38%
3
with regional disease, and 19% with metastatic disease. Five percent of patients were unstaged. As a proportion of total cases, African-Americans were more likely to present with advanced disease; 24% of African-Americans have metastatic
3
In
8
At
335
336 N.N. Baxter and J.G. Guillem
Rate per 100,000
Rate per 100,000
60
Incidence
40
Mortality
20
0
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97
73
Year of Diagnosis/Death
FIGURE 23-1. CRC incidence and death rates in the United States 1973–1997. (From Ries et al.
5
Copyright © 2000 American Cancer Society. Reprinted by permission of Wiley-Liss, Inc., a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
Rate per 100,000
150
100
50
0
00-04
05-09
10-14
15-19
Male and female Male Female
Age at diagnosis
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
FIGURE 23-2. Age-specific incidence rates in the United States. Age­specific incidence both genders—circles. Age-specific incidence in males—squares. Age-specific incidence in females–diamonds. [Generated from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER
*
Stat Database: Incidence—SEER 9 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2002 Sub (1973-2000), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2003, based on the November 2002 submission.]
85+
disease at presentation.11Rates of metastatic disease have fallen over time, most notably for CRC of the distal colon and rectum in Caucasians.
14
There is substantial geographic variation in the incidence of CRC, with relatively high rates in North America, Western Europe, and Australia and relatively low rates in Africa and
15
Asia
(Figure 23-3). Such observations led to Burkitt’s hypothesis—that dietary differences, specifically fiber and fat intake, between populations were responsible for the marked variation in rates of CRC found around the world. Burkitt observed that populations in low-risk areas of the third world had greater stool bulk, a faster colonic transit time, and higher dietary fiber intake than populations in high-risk westernized regions. Although such ecologic studies are confounded by numerous factors (for example, variations in average life expectancy, cancer detection methods, etc.), environmental factors (most prominently dietary factors) are still considered
to have a major role in this disease. This argument is sup­ported by studies of migrants from low prevalence areas to high prevalence areas. Such studies generally demonstrate that the incidence of CRC in the migrants increases rapidly to become similar and in some cases to exceed the incidence of
17
the high-risk area.
16
incidence of rectal cancer between countries as compared with the incidence of colon cancer.
Interestingly, there is less variation in the
18,19
Mortality from CRC is declining in the United States as age-adjusted CRC death rates peaked in the 1940s at 35 per 100,000. Rates in women have steadily decreased since this time and in 1998, the CRC death rate in women was 18.6 per 100,000. In men, death rates changed little until the 1980s and 1990s then decreased significantly; in 1998, the CRC death rate was 26.1 per 100,000 for men.
19
Improvements in surgi­cal and medical treatments likely explain some of the change particularly that identified before 1985. More recently, the
TABLE 23-1. Incidence and mortality rates*for CRC by site, race, and ethnicity, United States 1996–2000
Caucasian African-American Asian American and Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Hispanic/Latino
Incidence Male 64.1 72.4 57.2 37.5 49.8
Mortality Male 25.3 34.6 15.8 18.5 18.4
*
Per 100,000 age-adjusted to the 2000 United States standard population.
Source: Adapted from Jemal et al.,
Female 46.2 56.2 38.8 32.6 32.9
Female 17.5 24.6 11.0 12.1 11.4
11
with permission from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
23. Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Etiology, and Molecular Basis 337
TABLE 23-2. Stage at diagnosis
Caucasians African-Americans
Localized 38 34 Regional 38 36 Distant 19 24 Unstaged 5 7
reduced mortality rate is likely secondary to the reduced incidence of CRC. In fact, no improvement in case fatality has been identified since 1986
20
indicating the trends in mortality are likely complex, particularly given the gender differences. African-Americans have the highest mortality rate from CRC in the United States (Table 23-1). The reasons for the higher mortality rate are likely multifactorial including the higher incidence of CRC, and the differences in stage distribution. However, African-Americans had worse 5-year survival for all stages of disease, and the difference in 5-year survival rates between Caucasians and African-Americans has actu­ally increased over time; from an absolute difference of 5% in the 1970s (51% versus 46%) to an absolute difference of 13%
Australia (N.S. Wales
Brazil (Porto Alegre
Japan (Osaka 1988/92)
Sweden (1988/92)
Uganda (Kyadondo
A
Australia (N.S. Wales
Brazil (Porto Alegre
Japan (Osaka 1988/92)
Sweden (1988/92)
Uganda (Kyadondo
B
1988/92)
1990/92)
1991/93)
USA-SEER Black
(1988/92)
USA-SEER White
(1988/92)
1988/92)
1990/92)
1991/93)
USA-SEER Black
(1988/92)
USA-SEER White
(1988/92)
5 10152025303540
0
New cases per 100,000 person-years
5 101520253035404550
0
New cases per 100,000 person-years
in the 1990s (63% versus 53%).
11,21
Differences in incidence, stage distribution, and survival of CRC between Caucasians and African-Americans are in part attributable to differences in socioeconomic status, screening rates, and treatment
22
however, the differences may also be attributable to genetic and environmental factors that have yet to be elucidated.
23
Because CRC is a survivable cancer, with 5-year survival
3
rates adjusted for life expectancy of 63%,
the prevalence of people living with a diagnosis of CRC in the population is substantial. In 1996, more than 380,000 Americans older than 65 years of age received some type of CRC care (treatment or follow-up). Americans have had a diagnosis of CRC.
24
In total in 2004, more than 1 million living
25
Etiology
Dietary Constituents and Supplements
The colon is constantly exposed to the substances we ingest and the byproducts of ingestion. Thus, the role of diet in the pathogenesis of CRC has long been speculated. However, the relationship between diet and CRC risk is at best unclear. Studies in this area are difficult to conduct, because exposures tend to be multifactorial and change over time with our diet. In addition, because colorectal carcinogenesis is a multistep process, a number or combination of exposures may be nec­essary, and genetic susceptibility is likely to have a role. In addition, in most cases, randomized trials are not feasible, and therefore studies must be observational in nature. When inter­vention studies are possible, follow-up is relatively short term (compared with the long-term exposure that may be necessary for cancer development), and single dietary components are generally selected for evaluation although the influence of diet may depend on complex interactions between dietary constituents. In addition, to reduce sample size, some studies are conducted on patients with a history of adenomatous polyps. Some interventions in these patients may not be effective, because such patients may have already acquired numerous genetic alterations in normal-appearing colonic mucosa. Some interventions may need to be instituted before development of polyps. Although it can be stated that an individual with no other risk factors for CRC who ingests a diet that is high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables and low in ani­mal fat and red meat will be on average at lower risk of CRC than an individual who eats a diet low in fiber, fruits, and veg­etables and high in animal fat and red meat, it is difficult to determine with certainty which dietary components or combi­nations are responsible for the decreased risk.
;
FIGURE 23-3. A Age-standardized (to the world population) inci­dence rates of cancer of the large bowel among females. B Age-stan­dardized (to the world population) incidence rates of cancer of the large bowel among males. (Reprinted from Lagiou. © 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.)
15
Copyright
Dietary Fat
Dietary fat, particularly saturated animal fat has been impli­cated in carcinogenesis in the colon and rectum. Early research using animal models demonstrated a carcinogenic effect of dietary fat on colonic mucosa,
26–28
and ecologic
338 N.N. Baxter and J.G. Guillem
studies found parallels between CRC rates and dietary fat consumption. Countries with populations eating a high fat diet had higher CRC rates than countries with populations eating a lower fat diet.
29
However, dietary fat consumption is related to a number of other factors that may influence cancer risk, including other dietary factors such as dietary fiber and micronutrient consumption, as well as life-style factors such as exercise and alcohol consumption. Therefore, ecologic comparisons between countries are subject to a substantial risk of confounding.
30
More than 13 case-control studies have been conducted to evaluate the relationship between dietary fat intake and the risk of CRC. These have been quantitatively summarized by Howe
31
et al.
and include 5287 cases with CRC and 10,470 controls. Although positive associations were identified for total energy intake and CRC in almost all of the studies, there was no energy-independent relationship between dietary fat intake and CRC risk. After controlling for total energy intake, the odds of development of CRC in subjects with the highest dietary fat intake as compared with those with the lowest intake was 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72–1.13]. Overall, there was no evidence for any association of total dietary fat intake and development of CRC. A small but consistent relationship between cholesterol intake and CRC was identified.
At least six cohort studies have been conducted to evaluate
the relationship between dietary fat and CRC.
36
study
identified an association between dietary animal fat
32–37
Only one
and development of CRC, with a twofold increase in CRC in the highest consumers of animal fat as compared with the lowest consumers. A separate analysis of this same cohort indicated that regular intake of red meat was associated with a 2.5-fold increase in CRC risk as compared with infrequent consumption.
38
In fact, the evidence that red meat consump­tion is associated with CRC is in general more compelling than the evidence of an association with dietary fat. Given the lack of evidence for an independent association of dietary fat with CRC, it is unlikely that the animal fat in red meat is responsible for the association between red meat and CRC.
Red Meat
There are a number of potential carcinogenic mechanisms unrelated to fat content that may result in a causal relationship between red meat ingestion and CRC. Red meat is high in iron, a prooxidant. Dietary iron may increase free-radical pro­duction in the colon, and these free radicals may cause chronic mucosal damage or promote other carcinogens. In humans, red meat ingestion stimulates production of N-nitroso compounds in a dose-response manner. many N-nitroso compounds are known carcinogens, this is a potential mechanism for an association between red meat and CRC. Formation of heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aro­matic hydrocarbons in meat by cooking over an open flame or cooking until well done may be an important factor because these compounds are carcinogenic in animal models.
39
Because
40
Many epidemiologic studies have been conducted to deter-
mine the effect of ingestion of red meat on CRC risk. Two
41,42
metaanalyses have been published, results of 13 cohort studies,
41
the other combining 21 case-
control studies and six cohort studies.
one combining the
42
In the two studies, the pooled estimate for the increase in the risk of CRC caused by meat consumption was similar; the pooled estimate for the odds of development of CRC in the highest meat-consuming groups as compared with the lowest was 1.14. A daily increase of 100 g of red meat (3.5 ounces) was associated with a 12%–17% increased risk of CRC. The risk was sub­stantially higher with the ingestion of processed meat. Of note, individuals that consume diets high in red meat gener­ally consume diets low in other dietary factors,
43
such as antioxidants that may themselves be important in colorectal carcinogenesis. It is therefore difficult to rule out the possi­bility that the apparent effect of red meat on development of CRC may be confounded or modified by other dietary or lifestyle factors.
Fruit and Vegetable Intake
The effect of dietary intake of fruit and vegetables on CRC risk has been extensively evaluated. Fruits and vegetables are a source of antioxidants, including carotenoids and ascorbate. Other bioactive constituents in fruits and vegetables that may protect against carcinogenesis include the indoles and isoth­iocyanates. Previous research, including results from 22 case­control studies and four prospective cohort studies, has provided substantial support for the hypothesis that vegetable intake reduces the risk of CRC, whereas intake of fruit did not seem to have an effect. demonstrated a convincing link between vegetable or fruit intake and a reduced risk of CRC. In four large prospective cohort studies (the Nurse’s Health Study of 121,700 women, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study of 51,529 men, the Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer including 120,852 men and women, and the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort, including 133,163 men and women), fruit and vegetable intake was not statistically significantly associated with a reduced risk of CRC. Of note, participants in the Nurse’s Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study had a higher consumption of fruits and veg­etables and a higher prevalence of multivitamin use than the general United States population. show a trend toward a reduced risk of colon cancer in women eating large amounts of fruit and vegetables, particularly the brassica vegetables (cabbages, kale, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and cauliflower) and cooked leafy vegetables. The Cancer Prevention Study II tically significant trend for a higher colon cancer risk in men with the lowest vegetable consumption and women with the lowest fruit consumption.
Two additional studies have recently evaluated the effect of
fruit and vegetable consumption in cohorts of women enrolled
44
More recent data, however, have not
48
The Netherlands study did
47
also demonstrated a non–statis-
45–47
23. Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Etiology, and Molecular Basis 339
in breast cancer screening studies.
48,49
In the first study48of 61,463 women enrolled in the Swedish Two Counties ran­domized trial of screening mammography, fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with a decreased risk of CRC. Individuals consuming greater than 5.0 servings per day had a relative risk (RR) of CRC of 0.73 compared with individu­als consuming less than 2.5 servings. The second study included 45,490 women who participated in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project, a National Cancer Institute–sponsored breast cancer screening program. These women completed a food frequency questionnaire and were followed for 386,142 person-years. No association between fruit and vegetable intake and CRC risk was identified, even after adjustment for other potential confounders. In addition, a dietary intervention trial has been conducted; the Polyp Prevention Trial, randomized 2079 people with colorectal adenomas to either intensive dietary counseling with assign­ment to a diet low in fat and high in fruits, vegetables, and fiber or control.
50
No difference in adenoma recurrence rate was found in the intervention group as compared with the control group.
Overall, the evidence for an association between fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of CRC is inconsistent. Given this lack of concordant data, it is unlikely that a large number of cases of CRC can be attributed directly to a lack of fruit or vegetables, or that major additional interventions to increase consumption would lead to a substantial reduction in the inci­dence of CRC.
Fiber
Dietary fiber was one of the first dietary components thought to have a protective role in carcinogenesis. An association of a high fiber diet with a decreased risk of CRC was first theorized in 1969 by Burkitt tion between fiber and CRC risk are conflicting. Several mechanisms have been proposed for the protective effects of fiber: fiber may increase intestinal transit and therefore reduce the length of exposure of the colon to carcinogens, and fiber may dilute or absorb various potential carcinogens, particu­larly bile salts. In addition, products of fiber degradation and fermentation in the colon (such as butyrate) may also have a
51
role.
Overall, there has been little consistent evidence that a high fiber intake is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. Two large American cohort studies, the Nurses Health study and the Health Professionals’ Follow-up Study,35found no evi­dence of benefit of fiber on CRC risk.
However, two recent studies have reopened the debate. In the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Screening Trial, a nested case-control study of more than 37,508 people under­going flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed using food fre­quency questionnaires. People who reported the highest amounts of fiber in their diets had the lowest risk of colorec­tal adenomas, 27% less than people who ate the least amount of fiber. The strongest association was found for fiber from
16
; however, the data regarding the associa-
grains, cereals, and fruits but not for fiber from legumes and vegetables. When colonic and rectal adenomas were evalu­ated separately, the effect of fiber was seen only in colonic adenoma. In a second study, a prospective cohort study com­paring the diet of more than 500,000 people in 10 European countries, investigators in the European Prospective
49
Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
54
found that people who ate the most fiber had a 25% lower incidence of CRC than those who ate the least fiber. Again, the protective effect was highest for colon and least for rectum.
Dietary interventions to increase fiber intake have proven unsuccessful in reducing the risk of colorectal neoplasia. A metaanalysis has evaluated the effect of five intervention tri-
55
als.
These studies randomized a total of 4349 individuals to
some form of fiber supplementation or high fiber dietary inter-
50,56–59
vention.
When the data were combined, there was no difference between the intervention and control groups for the number of subjects developing at least one adenoma [RR = 1.04 (95% CI, 0.95–1.13)]. The authors concluded that there is currently no evidence from randomized studies to sug­gest that increased dietary fiber intake will reduce the inci­dence or recurrence of adenomatous polyps within a 2- to 4-year period.
Currently there is no single accepted definition of fiber. Many different types of fiber exist (soluble/nonsoluble, poly­saccharides/nonpolysaccharides) and these differences may influence CRC risk. In addition, fiber intake itself may not be protective but may be correlated with other healthy lifestyle choices as well as other components of a healthy diet (for example, high vegetable, low fat, and low meat). The lack of effect found in randomized trials as compared with observa­tional studies indicates this may be the case. However, the intervention trials may have been too short in duration to be able to demonstrate an effect.
Calcium
Substantial epidemiologic and experimental evidence exists to support the beneficial effect of calcium on the prevention of colorectal neoplasia. Calcium has the capacity to bind and precipitate bile acids and may directly influence mucosal cell proliferation. Most, although not all, of the observational studies evaluating the influence of dietary calcium have
51
demonstrated a protective effect of calcium on risk of CRC.
52
Particularly compelling, two randomized double-blind placebo-controlled intervention trials of calcium for the pre­vention of adenoma recurrence that included a total of 1346 subjects
53
plementation (1200 mg daily for a mean duration of 4 years or 2000 mg daily for a mean duration of 3 years) was associ­ated with a reduction in the recurrence of colorectal adenoma, although only one study a metaanalysis of the two studies, the overall odds of devel­oping recurrent adenomas was 0.74 for patients randomized to receive calcium as compared with placebo.
57,60
have demonstrated that the use of calcium sup-
60
achieved statistical significance. In
61