IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1001352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy-Based Screening on Incidence and Mortality of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • B Joseph Elmunzer
  • Rodney A Hayward
  • Philip S Schoenfeld
  • Sameer D Saini
  • Amar Deshpande
  • Akbar K Waljee

Abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials conducted by B. Joseph Elmunzer and colleagues reports that that flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer in average-risk patients, as compared to usual care or no screening. Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded varying estimates of the benefit of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to more precisely estimate the effect of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC by performing a meta-analysis of published RCTs. Methods and Findings: Medline and Embase databases were searched for eligible articles published between 1966 and 28 May 2012. After screening 3,319 citations and 29 potentially relevant articles, two reviewers identified five RCTs evaluating the effect of FS screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC. The reviewers independently extracted relevant data; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The quality of included studies was assessed using criteria set out by the Evidence-Based Gastroenterology Steering Group. Random effects meta-analysis was performed. Conclusions: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrates that FS-based screening significantly reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in average-risk patients. Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Regular CRC screening has been shown to reduce the risk of dying from CRC by 16%, and CRC screening can identify early stage cancers in otherwise healthy people, which allows for early treatment and management of the disease. Screening for colorectal cancer is frequently performed using a flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is a thin, flexible tube with a tiny camera and light on the end, allowing a doctor to look at the inside wall of the bowel and remove any small growths or polyps. Although screening may detect early cancers, the life-saving and health benefits of screening are uncertain because the polyp may not necessarily progress. This could lead to anxiety and unnecessary interventions and treatments amongst those screened. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to determine all of the risks involved in cancer screenings, however the guidelines that recommend FS-based screening do not rely upon RCT data. Recently, the results of four large-scale RCTs evaluating FS screening for CRC have been published. The conflicting results with respect to the incidence and mortality of CRC in these studies have called into question the effectiveness of endoscopic screening. Why Was This Study Done?: The results of RCTs measuring the risks and outcomes of CRC screening have shown varying estimates of the benefits of using FS screening. If better estimates of the risks and benefits of FS screening are developed, then the current CRC screening guidelines may be updated to reflect this new information. In this study, the authors show the results of a meta-analysis of published RCTs, which more precisely estimates the effects of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: The researchers used the Medline and Embase databases to find relevant studies from 1966 to May 28, 2012. After screening 3,319 citations and 29 potentially relevant articles, five RCTs of high methodologic quality and 416,159 total subjects evaluating the effect of FS screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC were identified. The data were extracted and random effects meta-analysis was performed. The meta-analysis revealed that FS-based screening was associated with an 18% relative risk reduction in the incidence of CRC (0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91, p

Suggested Citation

  • B Joseph Elmunzer & Rodney A Hayward & Philip S Schoenfeld & Sameer D Saini & Amar Deshpande & Akbar K Waljee, 2012. "Effect of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy-Based Screening on Incidence and Mortality of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001352
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001352
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001352&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001352?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francesca Santilli & Stefano Martellucci & Jennifer Di Pasquale & Cecilia Mei & Fabrizio Liberati & Carmela Protano & Matteo Vitali & Maurizio Sorice & Vincenzo Mattei, 2019. "Cancer Mortality Trend in Central Italy: Focus on A “Low Rate of Land Use” Area from 1982 to 2011," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-11, February.
    2. Ulrike Haug & Susanne Engel & Frank Verheyen & Roland Linder, 2014. "Estimating Colorectal Cancer Treatment Costs: A Pragmatic Approach Exemplified by Health Insurance Data from Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-5, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.