4.5 Article

Potential for colorectal cancer prevention of sigmoidoscopy versus colonoscopy:: Population-based case control study

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 494-499

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0460

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to estimate the proportions of colorectal cancer cases that might be prevented by sigmoidoscopy compared with colonoscopy among women and men. In a population-based case control study conducted in Germany, 540 cases with a first diagnosis of primary colorectal cancer and 614 controls matched for age, sex, and county of residence were recruited. A detailed lifetime history of endoscopic examinations of the large bowel was obtained by standardized personal interviews, validated by medical records, and compared between cases and controls, paying particular attention to location of colorectal cancer and sex differences. Overall, 39%, 77%, and 64% of proximal, distal, and total colorectal cancer cases were estimated to be preventable by colonoscopy. The estimated proportion of total colorectal cancer cases preventable by sigmoidoscopy was 45% among both women and men, assuming that sigmoidoscopy reaches the junction of the descending and sigmoid colon only and findings of distal polyps are not followed by colonoscopy. Assuming that sigmoidoscopy reaches the splenic flexure and colonoscopy is done after detection of distal polyps, estimated proportions of total colorectal cancer preventable by sigmoidoscopy increase to 50% and 55% (73% and 91% of total colorectal cancer preventable by primary colonoscopy) among women and men, respectively. We conclude that colonoscopy provides strong protection against colorectal cancer among both women and men. The proportion of this protection achieved by sigmoidoscopy with follow-up colonoscopy in case of distal polyps may be larger than anticipated. Among men, this regimen may be almost as effective as colonoscopy, at least at previous performance levels of colonoscopy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据