4.7 Article

Male Sex and Smoking Have a Larger Impact on the Prevalence of Colorectal Neoplasia Than Family History of Colorectal Cancer

Journal

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages 870-876

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.07.004

Keywords

Gender; Attributable Risk; Relative Risk; Bootstrap

Funding

  1. Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany, Berlin, Germany
  2. German Cancer Aid [108230]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) commonly take family history but no other risk factors into account. We compared and assessed risk factors of colorectal polyps in a large population undergoing screening colonoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study that included 3349 subjects, SS years or older (mean ages of men and women, 63.6 and 63.4 years, respectively), who underwent colonoscopy for the first time within the nationwide colonoscopy screening program in Germany. We calculated prevalences of colorectal polyps and estimated multivariate prevalence ratios (PRs) and population attributable fractions (PAFs). RESULTS: Overall, 654 subjects had hyperplastic polyps (20%), 675 had non-advanced adenomas (20%), 343 had advanced adenomas (10%), and 40 had CRC (1%). Risk factor prevalences and adjusted PRs were higher for male gender and smoking than for family history of CRC. PAFs for prevalence of non-advanced and advanced neoplasia were highest for male gender (23% and 23%, respectively), followed by smoking (7% and 9%, respectively), and family history of CRC (2% and 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender and smoking have a larger impact on the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia than family history, suggesting an extensive evaluation of additional risk stratification in population-based screening, particularly by sex.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available