Obesity and colorectal cancer Bardou, Marc; Barkun, Alan N; Martel, Myriam
Gut,
06/2013, Letnik:
62, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Excess body weight, as defined by the body mass index (BMI), has been associated with several diseases and includes subjects who are overweight (BMI ≥ 25-29.9 kg/m(2)) or obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)). ...Overweight and obesity constitute the fifth leading risk for overall mortality, accounting for at least 2.8 million adult deaths each year. In addition around 11% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases have been attributed to overweight and obesity in Europe. Epidemiological data suggest that obesity is associated with a 30-70% increased risk of colon cancer in men, whereas the association is less consistent in women. Similar trends exist for colorectal adenoma, although the risk appears lower. Visceral fat, or abdominal obesity, seems to be of greater concern than subcutaneous fat obesity, and any 1 kg/m(2) increase in BMI confers additional risk (HR 1.03). Obesity might be associated with worse cancer outcomes, such as recurrence of the primary cancer or mortality. Several factors, including reduced sensitivity to antiangiogenic-therapeutic regimens, might explain these differences. Except for wound infection, obesity has no significant impact on surgical procedures. The underlying mechanisms linking obesity to CRC are still a matter of debate, but metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and modifications in levels of adipocytokines seem to be of great importance. Other biological factors such as the gut microbiota or bile acids are emerging. Many questions still remain unanswered: should preventive strategies specifically target obese patients? Is the risk of cancer great enough to propose prophylactic bariatric surgery in certain patients with obesity?
To summarize and compare worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in order to identify similarities and disparities.
A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, ...EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge identifying all average-risk CRC screening guideline publications within the last ten years and/or position statements published in the last 2 years. In addition, a hand-search of the webpages of National Gastroenterology Society websites, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the BMJ Clinical Evidence website, Google and Google Scholar was performed.
Fifteen guidelines were identified. Six guidelines were published in North America, four in Europe, four in Asia and one from the World Gastroenterology Organization. The majority of guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals between ages 50 and 75 using colonoscopy (every 10 years), or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS, every 5 years) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT, mainly the Fecal Immunochemical Test, annually or biennially). Disparities throughout the different guidelines are found relating to the use of colonoscopy, rank order between test, screening intervals and optimal age ranges for screening.
Average risk individuals between 50 and 75 years should undergo CRC screening. Recommendations for optimal surveillance intervals, preferred tests/test cascade as well as the optimal timing when to start and stop screening differ regionally and should be considered for clinical decision making. Furthermore, local resource availability and patient preferences are important to increase CRC screening uptake, as any screening is better than none.
This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and ...presents new clinically relevant recommendations.
An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.
Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common and lethal malignancies in Western countries. Its development is a multistep process that spans more than 15 years, thereby providing an opportunity ...for prevention and early detection. The high incidence and mortality rates emphasise the need for prevention and screening. Many countries have therefore introduced CRC screening programmes. It is expected, and preliminary evidence in some countries suggests, that this screening effort will decrease CRC-related mortality rates. CRC prevention involves a healthy lifestyle and chemoprevention-more specifically, oral chemoprevention that can interfere with progression from a normal colonic mucosa to adenocarcinoma. This preventive effect is important for individuals with a genetic predisposition, but also in the general population. The ideal chemopreventive agent, or combination of agents, remains unknown, especially when considering safety during long-term use. This review evaluates the evidence across 80 meta-analyses of interventional and observational studies of CRC prevention using medications, vitamins, supplements and dietary factors. This review suggests that the following factors are associated with a decreased incidence of CRC: aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, magnesium, folate, a high consumption of fruits and vegetables, fibre and dairy products. An increased incidence of CRC was observed with frequent alcohol or meat consumption. No evidence of a protective effect for tea, coffee, garlic, fish and soy products was found. The level of evidence is moderate for aspirin, β-carotene and selenium, but is low or very low for all other exposures or interventions.
We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal ...bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.
Bowel cleanliness is a critical determinant of colonoscopy quality, mandating its standardized assessment, yet bowel preparation scales have been variably validated. The objective of this study was ...to assess validity and reliability of existing bowel preparation scales.
A systematic review of literature from January 1980 to January 2015 was performed. Main outcomes of this study are face, content, construct, and criterion validity, and inter- and intra-observer reliability measured by associations, interclass correlations (ICC) or κ-coefficients.
Fourteen citations assessed seven scales. The Aronchick Scale, showed fair-to-substantial inter-observer reliability (ICC=0.31-0.76), and was the reference for subsequent validity testing. The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale revealed superior inter-observer reliability (ICC=0.94). Five studies assessed the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Increasing BBPS scores were associated with polyp detection (left colon: odds ratio (OR)=2.58 (1.34; 4.98), right colon: OR=1.6 (1.01; 2.55), less repeat colonoscopies (cutoff of 5, P<0.001), and shorter insertion/withdrawal times (P<0.001), while displaying substantial to excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability (ICC=0.74-0.91). Criterion validity of the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) yielded slight-to-moderate expert-investigator agreement (ICC=0.15-0.46); HCS grades were not discriminant for adenoma detection. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were fair-to-moderate (ICC=0.46 (0.37; 0.54) and κ=0.28, respectively). The Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale displayed excellent inter-observer reliability (Pearson's r=0.84 (0.79; 0.88)), yet has been less studied.
To conclude, all the published scales displayed limitations. The BBPS is the most thoroughly validated scale and should be used in a clinical setting. Between-scale comparisons for repeat colonoscopy time interval, ease, and pertinence of use for auditing are needed.
To determine whether new users of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are at an increased risk of gastric cancer compared with new users of histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs).
Using the UK Clinical ...Practice Research Datalink, we conducted a population-based cohort study using a new-user active comparator design. From 1 January 1990 to 30 April 2018, we identified 973 281 new users of PPIs and 193 306 new users of H2RAs. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate HRs and 95% CIs of gastric cancer, and the number needed to harm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The models were weighted using standardised mortality ratio weights using calendar time-specific propensity scores. Secondary analyses assessed duration and dose-response associations.
After a median follow-up of 5.0 years, the use of PPIs was associated with a 45% increased risk of gastric cancer compared with the use of H2RAs (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.98). The number needed to harm was 2121 and 1191 for five and 10 years after treatment initiation, respectively. The HRs increased with cumulative duration, cumulative omeprazole equivalents and time since treatment initiation. The results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses.
The findings of this large population-based cohort study indicate that the use of PPIs is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer compared with the use of H2RAs, although the absolute risk remains low.
Background & Aims There are different regimens of preparing the colon for colonoscopy, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate, or oral sulfate solutions. We performed a ...meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of split-dose vs other colon preparation regimens, the optimal products for use, and the most effective preparation volumes. Methods We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, from January 1980 to March 2014, for published results from randomized trials that assessed split-dose regimens vs day-before colonoscopy preparation. We excluded studies that included pediatric or hospitalized patients, or patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was efficacy of bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes included side effects or complications, outcomes of procedures, patients’ willingness to repeat the procedure, and the amount of time required for patients to resume daily activities. Results We identified 47 trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 13,487 patients). Split-dose preparations provided significantly better colon cleansing than day-before preparations (odds ratio OR, 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.86–3.39), as well as day-before preparations with PEG (OR, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.46–4.63), sodium phosphate (OR, 9.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.12–41.11), or picosulfate (OR, 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.95–6.45). PEG split-dose preparations of 3 L or more yielded greater bowel cleanliness than lower-volume split-dose regimens (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis. A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat split-dose vs day-before cleansing (OR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–3.46), and low-volume split-dose preparations vs high-volume split-dose preparation (OR, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21–11.10). There were no differences between preparations in other secondary outcome measures. However, there was variation among studies in definitions and main and secondary outcomes. Conclusions Based on meta-analysis, split-dose regimens increase the quality of colon cleansing and are preferred by patients compared with day-before preparations. Additional research is required to evaluate oral sulfate solution–based and PEG low-volume regimens further.
PDF
