4.8 Article

Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840 149 screening colonoscopies

Journal

GUT
Volume 56, Issue 11, Pages 1585-1589

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gut.2007.122739

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To derive age and sex specific estimates of transition rates from advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by combining data of a nationwide screening colonoscopy registry and national data on colorectal cancer ( CRC) incidence. Design: Registry based study. Setting: National screening colonoscopy programme in Germany. Patients: Participants of screening colonoscopy in 2003 and 2004 ( n = 840 149). Main outcome measures: Advanced adenoma prevalence, colorectal cancer incidence, annual and 10 year cumulative risk of developing CRC among carriers of advanced adenomas according to sex and age ( range 55 - 80+ years). Results: The age gradient is much stronger for CRC incidence than for advanced adenoma prevalence. As a result, projected annual transition rates from advanced adenomas to CRC strongly increase with age ( from 2.6% in age group 55 - 59 years to 5.6% in age group >= 80 years among women, and from 2.6% in age group 55 - 59 years to 5.1% in age group >= 80 years among men). Projections of 10 year cumulative risk increase from 25.4% at age 55 years to 42.9% at age 80 years in women, and from 25.2% at age 55 years to 39.7% at age 80 years in men. Conclusions: Advanced adenoma transition rates are similar in both sexes, but there is a strong age gradient for both sexes. Our estimates of transition rates in older age groups are in line with previous estimates derived from small case series in the pre-colonoscopy era independent of age. However, our projections for younger age groups are considerably lower. These findings may have important implications for the design of CRC screening programmes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available