Добавил:
Sekretar
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
350 N.N. Baxter and J.G. Guillem
77. Asano TK, McLeod RS. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
and aspirin for the prevention of colorectal adenomas and cancer:
a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47(5):665–673.
78. Asano TK, McLeod RS. Non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAID) and aspirin for preventing colorectal adenomas and
carcinomas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004(2):CD004079.
79. Gann PH, et al. Low-dose aspirin and incidence of colorectal
tumors in a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85(15):
1220–1224.
80. Baron JA, et al. A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med 2003;348(10):891–899.
81. Sandler RS, et al. A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer.
N Engl J Med 2003;348(10):883–890.
82. Benamouzig R, et al. Daily soluble aspirin and prevention of
colorectal adenoma recurrence: one-year results of the APACC
trial. Gastroenterology 2003;125(2):328–336.
83. Giardiello FM, et al. Treatment of colonic and rectal adenomas
with sulindac in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J
Med 1993;328(18):1313–1316.
84. Giardiello FM, et al. Primary chemoprevention of familial adenomatous polyposis with sulindac. N Engl J Med 2002;346
(14):1054–1059.
85. Labayle D, et al. Sulindac causes regression of rectal polyps in
familial adenomatous polyposis. Gastroenterology 1991;101
(3):635–639.
86. Steinbach G, et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med
2000;342(26):1946–1952.
87. Singh G, Triadafilopoulos G. Epidemiology of NSAID
induced gastrointestinal complications. J Rheumatol Suppl
1999;56:18–24.
88. Wolfe MM, Lichtenstein DR, Singh G. Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med
1999;340(24):1888–1899.
89. Rahme E, et al. The cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors
rofecoxib and celecoxib prevent colorectal neoplasia occurrence and recurrence. Gastroenterology 2003;125(2):404–412.
90. Gupta RA, Dubois RN. Colorectal cancer prevention and treatment by inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2. Nat Rev Cancer
2001;1(1):11–21.
91. Bresalier RS, et al. Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl
J Med 2005;352(11):1092–1102.
92. Suleiman S, Rex DK, Sonnenberg A. Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer by aspirin: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Gastroenterology 2002;122(1):78–84.
93. Ladabaum U, et al. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness
analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001;135(9):769–781.
94. Hur C, Simon LS, Gazelle GS. The cost-effectiveness of
aspirin versus cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors for colorectal carcinoma chemoprevention in healthy individuals.
Cancer 2004;101(1):189–197.
95. Arguedas MR, Heudebert GR, Wilcox CM. Surveillance
colonoscopy or chemoprevention with COX-2 inhibitors in
average-risk post-polypectomy patients: a decision analysis.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15(5):631–638.
96. Grodstein F, Newcomb PA, Stampfer MJ. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and the risk of colorectal cancer: a review and
meta-analysis. Am J Med 1999;106(5):574–582.
97. Rossouw JE, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from
the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial.
JAMA 2002;288(3):321–333.
98. Chlebowski RT, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and colorectal
cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 2004;350
(10):991–1004.
99. Rymer J, Wilson R, Ballard K. Making decisions about hormone replacement therapy. BMJ 2003;326(7384):322–326.
100. Slattery ML, et al. Estrogens reduce and withdrawal of estrogens increase risk of microsatellite instability-positive colon
cancer. Cancer Res 2001;61(1):126–130.
101. Caan BJ, et al. Body size and the risk of colon cancer in a large
case-control study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998;22(2):
178–184.
102. Kune GA, Kune S, Watson LF. Body weight and physical
activity as predictors of colorectal cancer risk. Nutr Cancer
1990;13(1–2):9–17.
103. Lin J, et al. Body mass index and risk of colorectal cancer in
women (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2004;15(6):
581–589.
104. Terry PD, Miller AB, Rohan TE. Obesity and colorectal cancer
risk in women. Gut 2002;51(2):191–194.
105. Murphy TK, et al. Body mass index and colon cancer mortality in
a large prospective study. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152(9): 847–854.
106. Terry P, et al. Body weight and colorectal cancer risk in a
cohort of Swedish women: relation varies by age and cancer
site. Br J Cancer 2001;85(3):346–349.
107. Slattery ML, et al. Body mass index and colon cancer: an evaluation of the modifying effects of estrogen (United States).
Cancer Causes Control 2003;14(1):75–84.
108. Slattery ML. Physical activity and colorectal cancer. Sports
Med 2004;34(4):239–252.
109. Woodson K, et al. Loss of insulin-like growth factor-II imprinting and the presence of screen-detected colorectal adenomas in
women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(5):407–410.
110. Slattery ML, et al. Associations among IRS1, IRS2, IGF1, and
IGFBP3 genetic polymorphisms and colorectal cancer. Cancer
Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(7):1206–1214.
111. Sandhu MS, et al. Association between insulin-like growth factor-I: insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-1 ratio and
metabolic and anthropometric factors in men and women.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(1):166–170.
112. Friedenreich CM, Orenstein MR. Physical activity and cancer
prevention: etiologic evidence and biological mechanisms.
J Nutr 2002;132(11 suppl):3456S–3464S.
113. Giovannucci E. An updated review of the epidemiological evidence that cigarette smoking increases risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10(7):725–731.
114. Baron JA, et al. Neoplastic and antineoplastic effects of betacarotene on colorectal adenoma recurrence: results of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(10):717–722.
115. Slattery ML, et al. Associations between cigarette smoking,
lifestyle factors, and microsatellite instability in colon tumors.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(22):1831–1836.
116. Giovannucci E, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ. A meta-analysis of
cholecystectomy and risk of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 1993;105(1):130–141.
117. Lagergren J, Ye W, Ekbom A. Intestinal cancer after cholecystectomy: is bile involved in carcinogenesis? Gastroenterology
2001;121(3):542–547.

23. Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Etiology, and Molecular Basis 351
118. Schernhammer ES, et al. Cholecystectomy and the risk for
developing colorectal cancer and distal colorectal adenomas.
Br J Cancer 2003;88(1):79–83.
119. Eaden JA, Abrams KR, Mayberry JF. The risk of colorectal
cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut 2001;48(4):
526–535.
120. Ekbom A, et al. Ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer. A population-based study. N Engl J Med 1990;323(18):1228–1233.
121. Sharan R, Schoen RE. Cancer in inflammatory bowel disease.
An evidence-based analysis and guide for physicians and
patients. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2002;31(1):237–254.
122. Mpofu C, Watson AJ, Rhodes JM. Strategies for detecting colon
cancer and/or dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004(2):CD000279.
123. Loftus EV Jr. Does monitoring prevent cancer in inflammatory
bowel disease? J Clin Gastroenterol 2003;36(5 suppl):S79–83;
discussion S94–96.
124. Eaden J, et al. Colorectal cancer prevention in ulcerative colitis: a case-control study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14(2):
145–153.
125. Karlen P, et al. Is colonoscopic surveillance reducing colorectal cancer mortality in ulcerative colitis? A population based
case control study. Gut 1998;42(5):711–714.
126. Croog VJ, Ullman TA, Itzkowitz SH. Chemoprevention of
colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis. Int J Colorectal Dis
2003;18(5):392–400.
127. Gillen CD, et al. Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease: a comparison of the colorectal cancer risk in extensive colitis. Gut
1994;35(11):1590–1592.
128. Mellemkjaer L, et al. Crohn’s disease and cancer risk
(Denmark). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11(2):145–150.
129. Johns LE, Houlston RS. A systematic review and meta-analysis
of familial colorectal cancer risk. Am J Gastroenterol
2001;96(10):2992–3003.
130. Lynch HT, de la Chapelle A. Hereditary colorectal cancer.
N Engl J Med 2003;348(10):919–932.
131. Glanz K, et al. Underreporting of family history of colon cancer: correlates and implications. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev 1999;8(7):635–639.
132. Jacobs LA. Health beliefs of first-degree relatives of individuals with colorectal cancer and participation in health maintenance visits: a population-based survey. Cancer Nurs
2002;25(4):251–265.
133. Tamai O, et al. Radiation-associated rectal cancer: report of
four cases. Dig Surg 1999;16(3):238–243.
134. Brenner DJ, et al. Second malignancies in prostate carcinoma
patients after radiotherapy compared with surgery. Cancer
2000;88(2):398–406.
135. Shirouzu K, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of large
bowel cancer developing after radiotherapy for uterine cervical
cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37(12):1245–1249.
136. Jao SW, et al. Colon and anorectal cancer after pelvic irradiation. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30(12):953–958.
137. Woodhouse CR. Guidelines for monitoring of patients with
ureterosigmoidostomy. Gut 2002;51(suppl 5):V15–16.
138. Husmann DA, Spence HM. Current status of tumor of the
bowel following ureterosigmoidostomy: a review. J Urol
1990;144(3):607–610.
139. Baris D, et al. Acromegaly and cancer risk: a cohort study in
Sweden and Denmark. Cancer Causes Control 2002;13(5):
395–400.
140. Orme SM, et al. Mortality and cancer incidence in acromegaly:
a retrospective cohort study. United Kingdom Acromegaly
Study Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998;83(8):2730–2734.
141. Jenkins PJ, Besser M. Clinical perspective: acromegaly and
cancer—a problem. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86(7):
2935–2941.
142. Jenkins PJ, et al. Insulin-like growth factor I and the development of colorectal neoplasia in acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab 2000;85(9):3218–3221.
143. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell
2000;100(1):57–70.
144. Robbins DH, Itzkowitz SH. The molecular and genetic basis of
colon cancer. Med Clin North Am 2002;86(6):1467–1495.
145. Calvert PM, Frucht H. The genetics of colorectal cancer. Ann
Intern Med 2002;137(7):603–612.
146. Knudson AG Jr. Mutation and cancer: statistical study of
retinoblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1971;68(4):820–823.
147. Niell BL, et al. Genetic anthropology of the colorectal
cancer-susceptibility allele APC I1307K: evidence of genetic
drift within the Ashkenazim. Am J Hum Genet 2003;73(6):
1250–1260.
148. Rozen P, et al. Clinical and screening implications of the
I1307K adenomatous polyposis coli gene variant in Israeli
Ashkenazi Jews with familial colorectal neoplasia. Evidence
for a founder effect. Cancer 2002;94(10):2561–2568.
149. Frayling IM, et al. The APC variants I1307K and E1317Q
are associated with colorectal tumors, but not always with a
family history. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998;95(18):
10722–10727.
150. Takayama T, et al. Aberrant crypt foci of the colon as precursors of adenoma and cancer. N Engl J Med 1998;339(18):
1277–1284.
151. Kirsch DG, Kastan MB. Tumor-suppressor p53: implications
for tumor development and prognosis. J Clin Oncol
1998;16(9):3158–3168.
152. Birch JM, et al. Cancer phenotype correlates with constitutional TP53 genotype in families with the Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Oncogene 1998;17(9):1061–1068.
153. Rosati G, et al. Thymidylate synthase expression, p53, bcl-2,
Ki-67 and p27 in colorectal cancer: relationships with tumor
recurrence and survival. Tumour Biol 2004;25(5–6):258–263.
154. Resnick MB, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor, c-MET,
beta-catenin, and p53 expression as prognostic indicators in
stage II colon cancer: a tissue microarray study. Clin Cancer
Res 2004;10(9):3069–3075.
155. Iacopetta B. TP53 mutation in colorectal cancer. Hum Mutat
2003;21(3):271–276.
156. Fearon ER, et al. Identification of a chromosome 18q gene that
is altered in colorectal cancers. Science 1990;247(4938):
49–56.
157. Shibata D, et al. The DCC protein and prognosis in colorectal
cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;335(23):1727–1732.
158. Umar A, et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(4):261–268.
159. Ward R, et al. Microsatellite instability and the clinicopathological features of sporadic colorectal cancer. Gut 2001;48(6):
821–829.
160. Smyrk TC, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are a marker
for microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer
2001;91(12):2417–2422.

352 N.N. Baxter and J.G. Guillem
161. Jass JR, et al. Morphology of sporadic colorectal cancer with
DNA replication errors. Gut 1998;42(5):673–679.
162. Gryfe R, et al. Tumor microsatellite instability and clinical outcome in young patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med
2000;342(2):69–77.
163. Ribic CM, et al. Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349(3):247–257.
164. Peltomaki P. Deficient DNA mismatch repair: a common etiologic factor for colon cancer. Hum Mol Genet 2001;10(7):
735–740.
165. Lynch HT, de la Chapelle A. Genetic susceptibility to nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 1999;36(11):801–818.
166. Liu B, et al. Analysis of mismatch repair genes in hereditary
non-polyposis colorectal cancer patients. Nat Med
1996;2(2):169–174.
167. Cunningham JM, et al. Hypermethylation of the hMLH1 promoter in colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Cancer
Res 1998;58(15):3455–3460.
168. Toyota M, et al. Distinct genetic profiles in colorectal tumors
with or without the CpG island methylator phenotype. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97(2):710–715.
169. Kakar S, et al. Frequency of loss of hMLH1 expression in colorectal carcinoma increases with advancing age. Cancer
2003;97(6):1421–1427.
170. Al-Tassan N, et al. Inherited variants of MYH associated with
somatic G:C−>T:A mutations in colorectal tumors. Nat Genet
2002;30(2):227–232.
171. Sieber OM, et al. Multiple colorectal adenomas, classic adenomatous polyposis, and germ-line mutations in MYH. N Engl J
Med 2003;348(9):791–799.
172. Vogelstein B, et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor
development. N Engl J Med 1988;319(9):525–532.
173. Bird RP, Good CK. The significance of aberrant crypt foci in
understanding the pathogenesis of colon cancer. Toxicol Lett
2000;112–113:395–402.
174. Lengauer C, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Genetic instability in
colorectal cancers. Nature 1997;386(6625):623–627.
175. Grady WM. Genomic instability and colon cancer. Cancer
Metastasis Rev 2004;23(1–2):11–27.
176. Higuchi T, Jass JR. My approach to serrated polyps of the colorectum. J Clin Pathol 2004;57(7):682–686.
177. Jass JR. Pathogenesis of colorectal cancer. Surg Clin North Am
2002;82(5):891–904.

24
Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms
Thomas E. Read and Philip F. Caushaj
Cancer of the colon and rectum is the second leading cause of
cancer-related death in the United States. In 1997, it was estimated that 131,000 Americans were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and 55,000 died from this disease.
undergoing screening or preventive action, approximately 1 in
every 17 people in this country will develop colorectal cancer
at some point in life. However, evidence is mounting that colorectal adenocarcinoma can be prevented by detecting and
removing adenomatous polyps, and that detecting early-stage
cancers reduces mortality from the disease.
and early-stage cancers are usually asymptomatic; cancers
that have grown large enough to cause symptoms have a much
worse prognosis. This contrast highlights the need for screening in asymptomatic persons.
Most people will be of average risk and require screening
for colorectal cancer and polyps beginning at age 50.
However, a substantial number of people are at increased risk
because of an inherited predisposition to the disease and need
screening or treatment as early as puberty. By virtue of their
practice, colon and rectal surgeons, gastroenterologists, and
medical oncologists have contact with many patients with colorectal carcinoma as well as at-risk family members. These
specialists have the opportunity to guide the evaluation of atrisk persons and be advocates for appropriate screening examinations.
The explosion of genetic research in the last 15 years has
enabled us to better understand inherited forms of colorectal
cancer, and has helped to define high-risk populations that
need endoscopic or genetic screening for these diseases early
in life. The adenomatous polyposis coli gene is thought to
function as a gatekeeper of colorectal neoplasia. Germline
and somatic truncating mutations of the adenomatous polyposis coli gene are thought to initiate colorectal tumor formation
in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and sporadic colorectal carcinogenesis, respectively. Genetic testing for FAP
can help guide surveillance and treatment of patients at risk
for the disease. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer
1
2–6
Both polyps
Without
(HNPCC) is thought to be the result of DNA mismatch repair
deficiency, and genetic testing for HNPCC may ultimately
prove to have clinical value for patients in HNPCC families.
The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer has
been a subject of controversy. In 1995, the United States
Preventive Task Force reversed earlier position statements and
endorsed screening of asymptomatic average-risk persons,
using fecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy.
1996, the federal Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research (AHCPR) convened a collaborative group of experts
representing the American College of Gastroenterology,
American Gastroenterological Association, American Society
of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, American Society for
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Society of American
Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons to critically evaluate
7
the available evidence on colorectal cancer screening and to
develop appropriate clinical practice guidelines.
studied 3500 peer-reviewed publications to assess the
performance, effectiveness, acceptability to patients, costeffectiveness, and outcome of different screening examinations. The AHCPR guidelines
the American Cancer Society
the Practice Parameters for the Detection of Colorectal
Neoplasms published by the Standards Committee of the
American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.
provide the framework for this review.
7
were, in essence, endorsed by
11
and are virtually identical to
10
The panel
Classification of Risk and Screening
Recommendations
The cornerstone in determining a patient’s risk for developing
colorectal cancer is the family history. Failure to properly
investigate a patient’s family history of colorectal neoplasia
can lead to inappropriate and inadequate treatment of both the
patient and at-risk family members.
12
8,9
They
In
353

354 T.E. Read and P.F. Caushaj
TABLE 24-1. Patients with colorectal cancer
75% Average risk (sporadic)
15%–20% Family history of colorectal cancer
3%–8% HNPCC
1% FAP
1% Ulcerative colitis
Average Risk
As can be seen in Table 24-1, the majority of patients who
develop colorectal cancer have no identifiable risk factors.
Persons considered to be at average risk for colorectal cancer
do not fit any of the higher risk categories. Specifically, average-risk persons have no symptoms associated with colorectal
cancer, no personal history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps, no family history of colorectal neoplasia, no
inflammatory bowel disease, and no unexplained anemia.
Screening recommendations (Table 24-2): The AHCPR
panel recommended that average-risk persons should undergo
one of the following screening regimens, beginning at age 50:
1. Fecal occult blood testing annually
2. Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years
3. Fecal occult blood testing annually and flexible sigmoi-
doscopy every 5 years
4. Air contrast barium enema every 5–10 years
5. Colonoscopy every 10 years
Although the panel stated that all of the screening strategies
are acceptable options,
and weaknesses. The fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is a guaiac-based test for peroxidase activity that is nonspecific and
will fail to detect many small cancers and precancerous
13
lesions.
Nevertheless, several large randomized controlled
trials have shown that annual or biannual testing for fecal
7
each strategy has unique strengths
occult blood with complete diagnostic evaluation of the colon
(primarily with colonoscopy) for patients with a positive
3,14,15
FOBT reduces mortality from colorectal cancer.
The
AHCPR panel listed FOBT alone as an option for colorectal
cancer screening. However, because of the lack of sensitivity
of FOBT, the American Cancer Society recommends combining annual FOBT with flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years
rather than using FOBT alone as a screening method.
11
A major drawback to using FOBT as a screening technique
is poor compliance. Only 38%–60% of the patients in
prospective trials completed all the planned FOBT tests,
3,14,15
and use of FOBT in the general population is estimated to be
16
lower than in the research environment.
The steps necessary
for adequate sample collection, combined with dietary restrictions to avoid agents that can cause false-positive and falsenegative results may also hinder compliance with FOBT.
Proper performance of FOBT involves the sampling of
atraumatically obtained stool from three consecutive bowel
movements in a patient who has not ingested red meat,
aspirin, nonsteroidal inflammatory medications, turnips, melons, salmon, sardines, horseradish, or vitamin C for the 2 days
preceding the test and throughout the test period.
7,17
The
restriction of frequently ingested foods and medications,
combined with the natural aversion to stool sampling, makes
annual FOBT unappealing to many persons.
FOBT should not be confused with random stool guaiac
testing, which is the analysis of stool found on digital rectal
examination for blood. The lack of adequate diet and medication restriction before the test, potential for trauma to the anal
canal during digital rectal examination, and the inability to
reliably obtain stool from the distal rectum make the test
unreliable.
18
To date, random stool guaiac examination has
not been demonstrated to have benefit in screening for
colorectal cancer.
TABLE 24-2. Screening for colorectal cancer and polyps
Risk category Screening method Age to begin screening
Average risk Choose one of the following: 50 yr
Family history Choose one of the following: 40 yr, or 10 yr before diagnosis of the youngest affected
HNPCC Colonoscopy every 1–3 yr 21 yr
FAP Flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy every 1–2 yr Puberty
Ulcerative colitis Colonoscopy with biopsies for dysplasia every 1–2 yr 7–8 yr after the diagnosis of pancolitis; 12–15 yr after
*
The American Cancer Society recommends the combination of yearly FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy as preferable to either examination alone.
†Rigid proctoscopy is recommended as an adjunctive examination to allow adequate visualization of the distal rectum. Furthermore, flexible sigmoidoscopy
may be necessary to more completely evaluate a tortuous or spastic sigmoid colon.
FOBT annually
Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 yr
FOBT annually + flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 yr
Air contrast barium enema every 5–10 yr†
Colonoscopy every 10 yr
1. Colonoscopy every 10 yr family member, whichever is earliest
2. Air contrast barium enema every 5 yr†
Genetic counseling
Consider genetic testing
Genetic counseling
Consider genetic testing
*
*
the diagnosis of left-sided colitis

24. Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms 355
In some settings, FOBT test slides are rehydrated, which
contributes to the high incidence of false-positive tests and is
not recommended by the manufacturer. Hemoccult SENSA,
which seems to be as sensitive as the original Hemoccult test,
is the guaiac technique currently recommended for use.
19
In
the future, immunochemical techniques or genetic analysis
of cellular material in stool may prove to be more effective
than current FOBT technology in detecting occult colorectal
neoplasms via stool sampling.
20,21
The effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy as a screening tool
depends on its ability to detect cancers and adenomatous
polyps in the distal colon. If adenomatous polyps are found at
flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy should be strongly considered because almost one-third of such patients will have
neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon.
22
The effectiveness
of sigmoidoscopy in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer has never been proven by a randomized, controlled trial,
although case-control studies have shown a benefit.
2,6,23
There
was only a trend toward limited benefit of one-time screening
sigmoidoscopy, followed by colonoscopy for patients found
to have polyps, in the Telemark study from Norway.
24,25
The
Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovary Trial supported by the
National Cancer Institute is evaluating flexible sigmoidoscopy in a randomized, controlled setting, but mortality
data are not expected until 2008.
7
A multicenter prospective
trial examining the potential benefit of one-time screening
flexible sigmoidoscopy at age 60 is currently underway in the
United Kingdom and Italy.
26
The AHCPR panel listed flexible sigmoidoscopy alone as
an option for colorectal cancer screening, although such a
strategy will fail to detect neoplasms in the proximal colon
unless adenomatous polyps or cancer are found in the distal
colon that prompt colonoscopy. For this reason, The
American Cancer Society recommends combining flexible
sigmoidoscopy every 5 years with annual FOBT, rather than
using flexible sigmoidoscopy alone as a screening method.
11
Although this combined approach may detect more proximal
neoplasms than flexible sigmoidoscopy alone, 15%–25% of
patients with negative flexible sigmoidoscopy and negative
FOBT will have neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon at
colonoscopy, calling the rationale for this approach into
question.
27–31
The efficacy of barium enema in preventing colorectal cancer mortality has never been evaluated in a controlled trial, but
can be inferred from the fact that detecting polyps and earlystage cancers by other methods reduces the incidence and
mortality from colorectal cancer. Air contrast barium enema
will detect 50%–80% of polyps <1 cm, 70%–90% of polyps
>1 cm, and 50%–80% of Stage I and II adenocarcinomas.
32–35
Single column barium enema is less sensitive and should be
combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy if used as a screening
7
tool.
Rigid proctoscopy should be considered as an adjunct
examination because the balloon on the enema catheter often
prevents adequate imaging of the distal rectum. Another
major limitation of barium enema as a screening method is
that patients usually require colonoscopy if lesions are
detected.
Colonoscopy is the only screening technique that allows
the detection and removal of premalignant lesions throughout
the colon and rectum, and is the final common pathway for
any positive screening test. Although its effectiveness
depends on the skill and experience of the endoscopist to both
reach the cecum and to identify small lesions, it remains the
7
gold standard to evaluate the colonic mucosa.
The ability of
colonoscopy to reduce colorectal cancer mortality has been
demonstrated indirectly through studies showing that detecting and removing polyps reduces the incidence of colorectal
cancer and that detecting early cancers lowers the mortality
from the disease.
2–6
Compliance with screening colonoscopy
may be superior to that of other methods because no confirmatory examinations are required, and thus, patients are
subjected to a single bowel preparation.
CT colography (virtual colonoscopy) was developed in an
attempt to increase compliance with colorectal cancer screening, based on the impression that persons would be more
inclined to have a “scan” than a “scope.” The technique
involves thin-section computed tomography (CT) with threedimensional computer reconstructions to examine the colonic
mucosa (Figure 24-1A,B).
36,37
Although the technique has the
advantages of being noninvasive and not requiring sedation, a
vigorous oral laxative preparation is required, because adherent stool cannot be differentiated from neoplasia on CT. In
addition, a rectal catheter and air insufflation is used to distend the colon. CT colography cannot be assumed to be more
appealing to all patients who are reluctant to undergo
colonoscopy, because many patients are deterred more by the
laxative preparation beforehand than by the endoscopic procedure itself, and find rectal air insufflation in the absence of
sedation uncomfortable.
38
Initial trials demonstrated that CT
colography was not as sensitive as colonoscopy in the detection of small polyps,
39
although with improvements in technology and with greater experience with interpretation, CT
colography may ultimately prove to be as reliable as
colonoscopy in detecting colorectal neoplasia.
40
Regardless of
its accuracy, CT colography suffers (as does contrast enema)
from the disadvantage that biopsies cannot be obtained and
positive findings require endoscopic confirmation.
The Office of Technology Assessment of the United States
Congress found that FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, air
contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy are equally cost
effective as screening strategies, with an estimated cost of
less than $20,000 per year of life saved (assuming screening begins at age 50 and is discontinued at age 85).
7,41,42
Although cost-benefit analyses such as these are exceedingly
complex, this estimate is well within the acceptable range
of cost effectiveness by United States health standards
and compares favorably to screening mammography for
women older than age 50. As of January 1, 1998, Medicare
has reimbursed screening examinations for colorectal cancer
in average-risk persons older than the age of 50.
43
In 2001,

356 T.E. Read and P.F. Caushaj
follows (excerpted from their Web site, http://www.cms.hhs.
gov/medlearn/refcolcn.asp):
●
FOBT: once every 12 months
●
Flexible sigmoidoscopy: once every 48 months
●
Colonoscopy: once every 24 months if the patient is at high
risk for colon cancer; and once every 10 years (but not
within 48 months of a screening sigmoidoscopy) if the
patient is not at high risk for colon cancer
●
Double contrast barium enema: physician can decide to use
instead of a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy
At present, the choice of screening strategy for average-risk
persons is made with influence from primary care physicians,
patients, and third-party payers. Although the AHCPR panel’s
recommendation of five different screening strategies may
offer flexibility, it may also cause confusion and uncertainty.
Two of the five strategies depend on compliance with yearly
FOBT, which has been extremely difficult to achieve even in
the setting of controlled trials. Only air contrast barium enema
and colonoscopy provide total colonic evaluation, and contrast enema suffers from the necessity of performing
colonoscopy if a lesion is detected. Screening colonoscopy
every 10–15 years beginning at age 50 may ultimately prove
to be the most cost-effective method of screening average-risk
persons for colorectal cancer. Hopefully, future technologic
advances will allow for total colonic evaluation with minimal
patient discomfort and embarrassment, at reasonable cost. If a
simple stool-labeling technique is developed that allows for
reliable differentiation of stool from mucosa on CT without
the need for cathartic bowel preparation, CT colography may
fit these criteria.
44
FIGURE 24-1. A CT colography of an 87-year-old patient with a
large tumor of the splenic flexure who could not undergo
colonoscopy. The circumferential cancer can be seen occupying the
lumen of the colon. B This image is of the transverse colon proximal
to the cancer.
Medicare authorized reimbursement for screening
colonoscopy for average-risk persons. As of January 2004,
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines
for reimbursement for colorectal cancer screening are as
Personal History of Adenomatous Polyps
or Adenocarcinoma
A personal history of adenomatous polyps or colorectal adenocarcinoma places a person at higher than average risk for
the development of metachronous neoplasms. Surveillance
colonoscopy is thus recommended by virtually all consensus
12,45
groups.
subject of some debate, and no blanket recommendation can
be given for all patients. A rational surveillance strategy
should take into account the patient’s age, comorbid conditions, life expectancy, completeness of prior examinations,
pattern of neoplastic growth, and histologic features of
previously resected neoplasms. For instance, a 60-year-old
patient in good health who undergoes colonoscopic polypectomy of a single small tubular adenoma should probably
undergo surveillance colonoscopy in 3–5 years.
in good health who is found to have adenomas that are multiple, large, or dysplastic on initial screening colonoscopy
should be considered for colonoscopy at an earlier interval,
such as 6–12 months. However, a 90-year-old patient with
severe comorbidities and limited life expectancy would not
The interval between colonoscopies has been the
45
A patient

24. Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms 357
benefit as much from early surveillance, because removal of
premalignant lesions will probably not alter lifespan or
quality of life.
Patients who undergo curative resection of colorectal adenocarcinoma should undergo regular surveillance colonoscopy to detect new metachronous primary neoplasms. The
recommendation of the Standards Task Committee of
the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is for
initial postresection colonoscopy at 1 year, followed by
colonoscopy every 3–5 years thereafter, depending on the
pathology found at the preceding colonoscopic examination.
Obviously, all the considerations made for the selection of
postpolypectomy surveillance intervals, as noted above,
apply in this situation as well. The purpose of the
colonoscopy is not specifically to look for tumor recurrence
at the anastomotic suture line, because suture line recurrence
in the absence of unresectable extraluminal disease is
extremely uncommon,
46
but rather to search for new primary
neoplasms.
Family History of Colorectal Cancer or
Adenomatous Polyps
A family history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps
increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer. In general,
closer familial relationships to affected relatives, younger age
of onset, and larger numbers of affected relatives increase the
7,47,48
risk.
to exclude one of the better-defined inherited colorectal cancer syndromes, such as HNPCC or FAP.
colorectal cancer is gained, many patients with familial colorectal cancer may eventually be categorized as having distinct inherited syndromes. Recently, a germline mutation of
the adenomatous polyposis coli gene (I1307K variant) was
identified in persons of Ashkenazi Jewish descent that predisposes to the development of colorectal adenomas and carcinoma.
adenomatous polyposis coli gene and is thought to contribute
to carcinogenesis independent of mismatch repair deficiency.
risk persons may have clinical utility.
mended that patients with first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps begin screening for
colorectal neoplasia at age 40, or 10 years before the age at
diagnosis of the affected relative, whichever is earliest.
Those patients whose first-degree relatives developed colorectal cancer before age 50 may be at higher risk, and complete colonic evaluation with colonoscopy should be strongly
considered.
colorectal cancer, or relative with adenomatous polyps
diagnosed over age 60, may be screened as an averagerisk person.
for screening colonoscopy for high-risk patients when
A careful family history should always be obtained
As a greater understanding of the molecular genetics of
10,49–54
The mutation causes hypermutability of the
51
In the future, genetic testing for this mutation in at-
Screening recommendations: The AHCPR panel recom-
7
Patients with a second-degree relative with
7
As of January 1, 1998, Medicare will reimburse
performed at least 2 years after the last screening
colonoscopy or barium enema.
43
Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer
HNPCC is an inherited disorder that predisposes patients to
the development of colorectal cancer, with up to 75% of
patients developing the disease by age 65.
inherited in an autosomal dominant manner, and is thought to
be the result of germline mutations in mismatch repair genes
(genes that code for proteins responsible for correcting errors
during DNA replication). Patients with HNPCC typically
develop cancer between age 40 to 50 and most tumors occur
proximal to the splenic flexure. “Nonpolyposis” refers to the
distinction between HNPCC and FAP (in which patients have
hundreds of polyps), but is somewhat misleading because
patients with HNPCC develop adenomatous polyps. The progression from adenoma to carcinoma seems to be accelerated
in HNPCC patients as compared with patients with sporadic
cancers, and there is a tendency to develop multiple colorectal cancers in HNPCC.
55,59–61
Patients with HNPCC are also at
high risk for cancers of other organs, especially the ovary
and uterus.
The ability to conclusively identify gene carriers is not yet
fully developed, thus the penetrance of colorectal cancer in
gene carriers can only be estimated (about 90%). In addition,
some patients in HNPCC families who do not have identifiable germline mismatch repair gene mutations will develop
colorectal cancer.
62
For these reasons, the diagnosis of
HNPCC in a family remains clinical. The Amsterdam criteria (colorectal cancer in three or more family members; two
generations affected; one affected person a first-degree relative of another; and one cancer diagnosed before age 50) are
the strictest criteria and have the highest concordance with
known mismatch repair gene mutations.
originally developed for research purposes, to standardize
the definition of HNPCC. However, they fail to identify
patients who may be affected with HNPCC but do not fit the
strict criteria because of unknown or abbreviated family histories, as well as patients with a personal or family history of
extracolonic malignancies associated with HNPCC. A recent
National Cancer Institute working group acknowledged
the shortcomings of the Amsterdam criteria as clinical
guidelines and published recommendations to expand the
clinical suspicion of HNPCC to a broader range of patients.
The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary
7
Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer has also proposed similar
criteria.
62
Microsatellite instability has been reported in 85%–90% of
HNPCC colorectal cancers.
56
Detection of this phenotype has
been proposed as a screening method to trigger germline
mutational analysis in kindreds with uncertain family histo-
58
ries.
However, microsatellite instability is also found in
approximately 15% of sporadic cancers, and has not been
universally found to be predictive of familial cancer.
55–58
HNPCC is
62
These criteria were
62,63
58

358 T.E. Read and P.F. Caushaj
At present, the “true” definition of HNPCC remains uncertain. Neither refined clinical criteria nor germline mutational
analysis has provided a model of the syndrome that is predictive of phenotype in all cases. Clinically, the absence of
microsatellite instability or mismatch repair gene mutation
does not negate a family history that suggests an autosomal
dominant predisposition to developing colorectal cancer. Atrisk family members still require aggressive screening.
Screening recommendations: Expert panels convened by
the AHCPR
7
and the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium
recommend that persons who are members of a family that
fits clinical criteria for HNPCC undergo colonoscopy at age
20–25, and repeat colonoscopy every 1–3 years. The short
time interval between colonoscopies results from the accelerated adenoma to carcinoma progression thought to occur in
HNPCC. Patients and their family members should be
referred for genetic counseling. Germline testing for mismatch repair gene mutations can be considered,
64
but because
the predictive value of such testing is only 30%–50%,
colonoscopy should be performed regardless.
Familial Adenomatous Polyposis
FAP is caused by a defect in the adenomatous polyposis coli
gene, which is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner.
Patients with FAP develop hundreds of adenomatous polyps
as early as puberty, and will ultimately develop colorectal
cancer, usually by age 40.
prone to develop a variety of extracolonic tumors, notably
duodenal adenomas and carcinomas, and desmoid tumors.
FAP mutations do occur spontaneously, accounting for
patients who are diagnosed with the disease without a family
history of FAP.
68
Attenuated FAP is a rare variant of the dis-
ease, with polyps and cancers developing later in life.
The most frequently used genetic test for FAP is an assay
for a truncated protein product of the mutated adenomatous
polyposis coli gene. Because only about 80% of families with
FAP will have a mutation that produces a truncated protein,
the predictive value of testing at-risk family members is greatest if the proband (affected relative) has a positive test.
Screening recommendations: Patients with a family history
of FAP should undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy or
colonoscopy at puberty.
repeated every 1–2 years. Genetic testing should be considered, especially in large pedigrees where genotyping might be
more cost effective than repeated endoscopy.
has a positive truncated protein assay, at-risk relatives who
test negative may be screened as average-risk persons.
Because of the socioeconomic, medicolegal, and emotional
issues surrounding genetic testing, it cannot be emphasized
enough that genetic testing for FAP should be done after
genetic counseling and informed consent.
counselors can guide patients through the testing process and
help interpret results. Giardiello et al.
physicians ordering genetic tests for FAP misinterpreted the
66,67
Patients with FAP are also
7,71
Lower endoscopy should be
71
If the proband
70
Trained genetic
70
found that 32% of
69
70
71
results of the test, and that less than 20% of patients tested had
received pretest genetic counseling or written informed consent. These numbers are sobering when one considers that
FAP has 100% mortality if left untreated. Patients should also
undergo screening upper endoscopy for duodenal adeno-
72
mas.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
55
Patients with ulcerative colitis have an increased risk of
developing colorectal cancer. This risk begins approximately
7–8 years after diagnosis in patients with pancolitis, and
12–15 years after diagnosis in patients with limited left-sided
7
colitis.
There may be an increased risk of colorectal cancer in
patients with Crohn’s colitis, although this is less well
defined.
73–78
Screening recommendations: It is common practice for
patients with ulcerative colitis to undergo screening
62
colonoscopy with multiple random biopsies looking for dysplasia every 1–2 years, beginning 7–8 years after diagnosis in
patients with pancolitis and 12–15 years after diagnosis in
patients with left-sided colitis.
7,79,80
However, evidence that
surveillance reduces mortality, or is better than timing a
colectomy according to extent and duration of disease, is
65
weak.
7,79,80
Future Directions
66
It is troubling that so much energy and expense is devoted to
the cure of advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer in the
United States, while so little is devoted to screening for
polyps and early-stage cancers. It is estimated that only
10%–30% of adults older than the age of 50 in this country
undergo any regular screening for colorectal neoplasia.
In a report issued in 2002, the United States General
Accounting Office found that colorectal cancer screening is
the least utilized preventive health benefit available to
Medicare beneficiaries (General Accounting Office,
Medicare–Beneficiary Use of Clinical Preventive Services,
Report No. GAO-22-422; April 2002). As is the case in the
general population, only 25% of Medicare beneficiaries are
screened each year with FOBT, compared with much higher
rates for other regular cancer screening tests such as mammography (75%) or Pap smear testing (66%). Until recently,
screening for colorectal cancer has not received much publicity in the United Sates, despite colorectal cancer being the
second leading cause of cancer-related death in this country,
and despite having a well-defined, identifiable, and treatable
precursor lesion (the adenomatous polyp). Both health care
professionals and the public need to become more aware of
the potential benefits of colorectal cancer screening.
As the genetics of inherited colorectal cancer syndromes
become better understood, it will be possible to conclusively
identify high-risk populations. It is of paramount importance
16,81,82

24. Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms 359
that screening efforts be directed toward these populations.
Genetic counselors are invaluable resources, both to counsel
family members and to help direct genetic testing.
References
1. Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1997.
CA Cancer J Clin 1997;47:5–27.
2. Newcomb P, Norfleet R, Storer B, Surawicz T, Marcus P.
Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality. J Natl
Cancer Inst 1992;84:1572–1575.
3. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O.
Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecaloccult-blood test. Lancet 1996;348:1467–1471.
4. Winawer SJ, Flehinger BJ, Schottenfeld D, Miller DG.
Screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood testing
and sigmoidoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1311–1318.
5. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal
cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study
Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–1981.
6. Muller AD, Sonnenberg A. Protection by endoscopy against
death from colorectal cancer. A case-control study among veterans. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:1741–1748.
7. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer
screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology
1997;112:594–642.
8. Frame PS, Berg AO, Woolf S. U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force: highlights of the 1996 report. Am Fam Physician 1997;
55:567–576, 581–582.
9. Levin B, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. American
Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology 1996;111:
1381–1384.
10. Laken SJ, Petersen GM, Gruber SB, et al. Familial colorectal
cancer in Ashkenazim due to a hypermutable tract in APC. Nat
Genet 1997;17:79–83.
11. Byers T, Levin B, Rothenberger D, Dodd GD, Smith RA.
American Cancer Society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: update
1997. American Cancer Society Detection and Treatment
Advisory Group on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin
1997;47:154–160.
12. Simmang CL, Senatore P, Lowry A, et al. Practice parameters for
detection of colorectal neoplasms. The Standards Committee,
The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis Colon
Rectum 1999;42:1123–1129.
13. Rockey DC, Koch J, Cello JP, Sanders LL, McQuaid K. Relative
frequency of upper gastrointestinal and colonic lesions in
patients with positive fecal occult-blood tests. N Engl J Med
1998;339:153–159.
14. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al.
Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for
colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472–1477.
15. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from
colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota
Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1365–1371.
16. Anderson LM, May DS. Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States? Am J
Public Health 1995;85:840–842.
17. Ransohoff DF, Lang CA. Screening for colorectal cancer with
the fecal occult blood test: a background paper. American
College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:811–822.
18. Nakama H, Fattah AS, Zhang B, Kamijo N. Digital rectal examination sampling of stool is less predictive of significant colorectal pathology than stool passed spontaneously. Eur J
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000;12:1235–1238.
19. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Clinical Practice Guidlines in
Oncology. JNCCN 2003;1:72–93.
20. Traverso G, Shuber A, Levin B, et al. Detection of APC mutations in fecal DNA from patients with colorectal tumors. N Engl
J Med 2002;346:311–320.
21. Limburg PJ, Devens ME, Harrington JJ, Diehl NN, Mahoney
DW, Ahlquist DA. Prospective evaluation of fecal calprotectin as
a screening biomarker for colorectal neoplasia. Am J
Gastroenterol 2003;98:2299–2305.
22. Read TE, Read JD, Butterly LF. Importance of adenomas 5 mm
or less in diameter that are detected by sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J
Med 1997;336:8–12.
23. Selby J, Friedman G, Quesenberry C, Weiss N. A case-control
study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal
cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:653–657.
24. Thiis-Evensen E, Hoff GS, Sauar J, Langmark F, Majak BM,
Vatn MH. Population-based surveillance by colonoscopy: effect
on the incidence of colorectal cancer. Telemark Polyp Study I.
Scand J Gastroenterol 1999;34:414–420.
25. Thiis-Evensen E, Hoff GS, Sauar J, Majak BM, Vatn MH. The
effect of attending a flexible sigmoidoscopic screening program
on the prevalence of colorectal adenomas at 13-year follow-up.
Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1901–1907.
26. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Wardle J, et al. Design of a multicentre
randomised trial to evaluate flexible sigmoidoscopy in colorectal
cancer screening. J Med Screen 2001;8:137–144.
27. Lieberman D, Smith F. Screening for colon malignancy with
colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1991;86:946–951.
28. Achkar E, Carey W. Small polyps found during fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic patients. Ann Intern Med 1988;
109:880–883.
29. Brady PG, Straker RJ, McClave SA, Nord HJ, Pinkas M,
Robinson BE. Are hyperplastic rectosigmoid polyps associated
with an increased risk of proximal colonic neoplasms?
Gastrointest Endosc 1993;39:481–485.
30. Rex DK, Smith JJ, Ulbright TM, Lehman GA. Distal colonic
hyperplastic polyps do not predict proximal adenomas in asymptomatic average-risk subjects. Gastroenterology 1992;102:
317–319.
31. Mehran A, Jaffe P, Efron J, Vernava A, Liberman A. Screening
colonoscopy in the asymptomatic 50- to 59-year-old population.
Surg Endosc 2003;17(12):1974–1977.
32. Steine S, Stordahl A, Lunde OC, Loken K, Laerum E. Doublecontrast barium enema versus colonoscopy in the diagnosis of
neoplastic disorders: aspects of decision-making in general practice. Fam Pract 1993;10:288–291.
33. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, McGee D, Garewal H.
Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of
polyps missed by colonoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:
1769–1772.
34. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS.
Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large
colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:125–127.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
