Download PDF
Endoscopy 2001; 33(12): 1042-1064
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-18938
Review

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Early Diagnosis and Prevention of Sporadic Colorectal Cancer[1]

R. Lambert 1 , D. Provenzale 2 , N. Ectors 3 , H. Vainio 1 , M. F. Dixon 4 , W. Atkin 5 , M. Werner 6 , S. Franceschi 1 , H. Watanabe 7 , G. N. Tytgat 8 , A. T. Axon 9 , H. Neuhaus 10
  • 1 International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
  • 2 Institute for Clinical and Epidemiological Research, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  • 3 Department of Pathology, Leuven, Belgium
  • 4 Academic Unit of Pathology Leeds, UK
  • 5 Colorectal Cancer Unit, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK
  • 6 Institute of Pathology, Munich, Germany
  • 7 Division of Molecular and Diagnostic Pathology, Niigata, Japan
  • 8 Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 9 Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
  • 10 Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Düsseldorf, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Early Colorectal Neoplastic Lesions

The Adenoma-Carcinoma Sequence

Most cases of colorectal (CR) cancer are sporadic; a small percentage occur in heritable syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), attenuated adenomatous polyposis coli, flat adenoma syndrome, hereditary nonpolyposis CR cancer (HNPCC), juvenile polyposis syndromes, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome and hereditary non-FAP, non-HNPCC.

A large body of clinical evidence supports the belief that a majority of CR cancers arise from precursor lesions, benign adenomatous polyps [1]. The classical adenoma-carcinoma sequence postulates that adenomas contain dysplastic epithelium which arises from mutations in either the adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC) or the DNA mismatch repair genes.

There is some confusion in the use of the terms dysplasia and adenoma: in the West, protruded or slightly elevated noninvasive neoplastic lesions are called adenomas, while flat or depressed neoplastic noninvasive lesions are called dysplasia. In the East, both types of lesions are called adenomas and described as protruding, flat or depressed. There is now a trend to use the terms polypoid and nonpolypoid. Polypoid adenomas correspond to protruded polyps, including both sessile and pedunculated types. Nonpolypoid adenomas include sligthly elevated polyps and the flat or depressed areas of dysplasia (or adenoma).

In polypoid adenomas, the risk of malignant transformation increases over time and with size and/or villous architecture. In populations with a high prevalence of adenomas, 40 to 50 % of individuals have multiple lesions. The degree of dysplasia is greater in patients with multiple rather than with solitary adenomas, which may explain the higher risk for cancer in patients with multiple adenomas.

De Novo Cancer

The term “de novo” cancer was initially introduced to describe those CR cancers which did not develop from a pre-existing adenoma, along the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. In Japan, the concept of “flat or depressed adenoma” was elaborated by Muto in 1985, and increasing numbers of nonpolypoid cancers (mainly early cancers) have since been reported in that country [2]. The macroscopic morphology of CR adenomas is determined by the balance between proliferation and apoptosis; the high apoptosis found in depressed adenomas correlates with low net growth [3]. In depressed adenomas, the tubular architectural pattern is distinct and the villous architectural pattern is nonexistent. These lesions were originally thought to be unique to the Japanese population. A prospective study of 1000 colonoscopies in the UK revealed that 36 % (117/321) of the adenomas found were nonpolypoid and that the likelihood of high-grade dysplasia or cancer increased from 4 % (3/70) in small nonpolypoid lesions, to 6 % (9/154) in small protruded polyps, 16 % (8/50) in larger polyps, 29 % (14/49) in large nonpolypoid lesions, and 75 % (3/4) in nonpolypoid depressed lesions [4]. These Western data corroborate the notion expressed by Kudo et al. that although depressed lesions have a low frequency, they are the aggressive ones [5] [6] .

Nonpolypoid early cancers are believed to adopt a distinct molecular route in carcinogenesis, and some claim these lesions may develop de novo, without the adenomatous step. Genetically APC and p53 gene mutation rates are similar in polypoid and nonpolypoid lesions, while K-ras mutation rates are lower in nonpolypoid early cancer. This may suggest a specific sequence of mutations [7] [8] , but does not necessarily indicate de novo carcinogenesis. In fact, more than 50 % of nonpolypoid and nondepressed early cancers are accompanied by residual adenoma, whereas nonpolypoid depressed early cancers have no adenomatous component [9]. Kudo [1] has adopted the concept of two distinct routes for carcinogenesis in the colorectal mucosa, where the “alternative” direct route relates to nonpolypoid precursors and thus to some of those lesions described as de novo cancer. A similar low K-ras mutation rate is proposed for the development of malignancy in serrated adenomas or in the mixed type of serrated adenoma and hyperplastic polyp [10]. The difficulty resides in assessing the relative proportion of polypoid, nonpolypoid (flat or depressed) and serrated adenomas as precursors in carcinogenesis. However, it is extremely likely that the adenoma-carcinoma sequence still holds for the majority of cases.

Intramucosal Neoplasia

Some confusion occurs in the distinction between dysplasia and cancer with respect to intramucosal lesions. In the absence of invasion of the lamina propria, the same neoplastic lesion may be called high-grade dysplasia in the West and cancer in Japan. The Vienna classification was elaborated by a group of Western and Eastern pathologists in 1998, in an attempt to resolve those differences, largely by adopting the terminology proposed there [11]. A group of gastrointestinal pathologists and gastroenterologists also met in Houston in February 1998 and in Padova in spring 1998, with the same objective, and proposed the Padova international classification [12]. Both articles were published within a short interval of time. Since the introduction of the Vienna classification, the new WHO classification of neoplasias of the gastrointestinal tract has been published and modifications to the Vienna classification have been suggested; however, the differences in nomenclature are merely semantic.

Although no overall agreement has been achieved yet on terminology, there is a tendency to use the term “low- or high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN)”, in the absence of stromal invasion. Intramucosal neoplasia corresponds to intraepithelial lesions as well as lesions invasive into the mucosa only. The absence of lymphatics in the colonic mucosa, and thus of a potential risk for lymphatic metastasis, justifies this lumping.

Depth of Tumor Invasion into the Submucosa

Neoplastic lesions restricted to the colonic mucosa never metastasize to lymph nodes. Submucosal cancers metastasize to lymph nodes in approximately 15 % of cases, and the risk correlates with the degree of submucosal invasion in depth and in width. Most Japanese specialists classify the degree of submucosal invasion, either by a relative value (Figure [1]), or by an absolute value, for safe endoscopic resection of early CR cancer.

Figure 1 Classification of the depth of invasion of colorectal cancer into the submucosa. The risk of lymph node involvement increases from the sm1a to the sm1c category Relative Evaluation of the Degree of the Submucosal Invasion Depth sm1: submucosal invasion within the superficial third of the depth of the submucosa; sm2: submucosal invasion reaching the middle third; sm3: submucosal invasion reaching the deepest third. Width This applies only to the sm1 degree of invasion. The width of the tumor component in the superficial third of the submucosa (B) is compared with the width of the tumor component in the mucosa (A), resulting in: sm1a: submucosal invasion with a B/A ratio of less than Œ sm1b: submucosal invasion with a B/A ratio of less than Œ to œ sm1c: submucosal invasion with a B/A ratio of more than œ. Absolute Evaluation of the Degree of the Submucosal Invasion Depth This is the vertical length of the submucosal invasion from the lowest edge of the muscularis mucosae: sm1: less than 0.5 mm; sm2: 0.5 to 1 mm; sm3: over 1 mm. Width This is the horizontal length of the submucosal invasion: sma: less than 1 mm; smb: 1 to 3 mm; smc: over 3 mm. It has been reported 13 that overt lymph node metastasis was negative in sm1 lesions (0/12) and sm2 lesions (0/2), regardless of the degree of horizontal submucosal invasion; it was also negative for sm3a (0/2) and sm3b lesions (0/5), but positive at 21 % (23/110) for sm3c cancers. When a CR neoplastic lesion has been resected at endoscopy, if there is cancer invasion into the submucosa, additional bowel resection should generally be considered. The risk of metastasis is particularly high when there is obvious lymphatic/venous invasion, massive cancer invasion near the cut margin, and when the adenocarcinoma is poorly differentiated or undifferentiated. However the criteria which suggest additional therapy may be equivocal. This is why endoscopic mucosectomy should be avoided when there is high suspicion for submucosal invasion; indeed the endoscopic morphology of the lesion may predict the risk of submucosal invasion. Polypoid lesions are most frequently sm1 or sm2, and infrequently sm3. Nonpolypoid lesions are less frequently sm1 and often sm2 or sm3.

Serrated Adenomas

Serrated adenomas are uncommon lesions. Three retrospective studies based on polypectomies agreed on an frequency of 0.5 to 0.6 % among polyps [14]. However, since serrated adenomas are often small and have an “hyperplastic appearance” at endoscopy, they are not likely to be removed [15], thus leading to an underestimation.

The clinical features of hyperplastic polyps, traditional adenomas and serrated adenomas are not distinctly different, with regard to sex distribution, age and location in the colorectum [14]. Serrated adenomatous polyposis has been described. Serrated adenomas range from 0.2 to 7.5 cm in diameter, and 66 % are small (0.2 to 0.6 cm). Of the larger ones approximately 10 % are pedunculated. Nonpolypoid variants have been described.

Serrated adenomas are composed of serrated glands, resembling hyperplastic polyps at low-power histological examination. However at higher magnification they are seen to be lined by a monotonous epithelium which contains more mucus than most adenomas but fewer mature cells than hyperplastic polyps. Serrated adenomas, as hyperplastic polyps, do express a similarly altered distribution pattern of glycoproteins antigens (MUC2, MUC4, MUC5AC and pS2) compared with tubular adenomas and carcinomas [16]. Traditional adenomatous glands may be admixed in one out of four cases. The subepithelial collagen table is not thickened, in contrast to hyperplastic polyps, and inflammation may be present.

Based on the description of variable degrees of dysplasia and the development of invasive adenocarcinomas within serrated adenomas, the latter have a role as precursor for CR cancer. Molecular biological studies have involved Ki-67 and Bcl-2 expression, p53 gene mutations [10]. Data on p53 overexpression, APC gene and K-ras mutations [5] and DNA microsatellite instability are variable. Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the DCC gene was not found [17]. Mutations of the p53 gene seem to be the most characteristic genetic alteration, as an event in a multistep carcinogenic pathway, which might be distinct from the traditional adenoma-carcinoma sequence or from carcinogenesis via mutations of mismatch repair genes.

Markers of Neoplastic Evolution p53 Status In order to clarify the issue of the influence of mutant p53 on treatment outcome in CR cancer Petersen et al. performed a meta-analysis of published studies 18. A total of 28 studies were evaluable for a total of 4416 patients, using either immunochemistry to detect p53 overexpression or DNA sequencing to detect TP 53 mutations. Both negative and positive influences on survival were reported with mutant p53, and it is unlikely that p53 status can be applied in a routine clinical test. Microsatellite Instability in Hereditary Cancer The microsatellite loci may be classified according to stability into those with a low or a high frequency of instability. Microsatellite instability (MSI) is shown by the positive replication error test (RER+) using the polymerase chain reaction. When instability occurs at 40 % or more of microsatellite loci, this is defined as high instability (hMSI); this feature has been found in most cases of HNPCC and has been included in the Amsterdam-Bethesda criteria for HNPCC 19. At present six human genes have been identified as participating in the function of mismatch repair. Inherited germ-line mutations of mismatch-repair genes have been found in approximately 50 % of persons with a family history which fulfils the Amsterdam criteria. Alterations of the MSH2 and MLH1 mismatch-repair genes account for more than 90 % of these cases. Another mismatch repair gene, hPMS2, is involved in approximately 6 % of HNPCC cases. Microsatellite Instability in Sporadic Cancer hMSI occurs in approximately 15 % of sporadic cases of CR cancer. Acquired, noninherited alterations of the MLH1 gene occur in most sporadic cases of CR cancer with hMSI. A number of studies have shown that hMSI occurs relatively frequently in CR cancers which arise proximal to the splenic flexure, in poorly differentiated cancers or those of mucinous cell type, and in cancers with peritumoral lymphocytic infiltration; these are associated with longer survival. In a recent study, based on the Ontario Cancer Registry (607 patients treated for CR cancer) hMSI was found in 17 % of cases, low MSI in 3 % and microsatellite stability in 80 % 20. In a multivariate analysis MSI was associated with a significant survival advantage, independently of all standard prognostic factors, including tumor stage (Odd's ratio 0.42, P < 0.001). Furthermore, regardless of the depth of tumor invasion, CR cancer with hMSI had a decreased likelihood of metastasizing to regional lymph nodes (Odd's ratio 0.33, P < 0.001) or distant organs (Odd's ratio 0.49, P = 0.02). From other studies it would seem that these patients are at risk of metachronous CR cancer. Finally there is accumulating (in vitro) evidence to suggest that these patients respond differently to chemotherapy. This clinically distinct subtype of sporadic CR cancer needs to be identified. Immunochemical Testing of Microsatellite Instability Immunohistochemical findings to detect loss of MLH1, MSH2 or also MSH6 protein expression has been included in the Amsterdam-Bethesda criteria for HNPCC 19. A report 21 on the immunohistochemical analysis of 501 cases of CR cancer, with antibodies directed against hMSH2 and hMLH1 showed an excellent correlation with the hMSI status as detected by DNA sequencing. Immunochemistry is an initial simple laboratory test, which could be performed on all CR cancers. Thus, it could provide a way for selecting patients who should be investigated for HNPCC, as well as those patients with a distinct subtype of sporadic cancer. A recent study in Belgium 22 on patients with CR cancer with familial clustering indicates that in the case of missense mutations, the immunohistochemical analysis of sections of the tumor can differ from the MSI results: if the substituted amino acid is located outside the epitope of the hMLH1 or hMSH2 antibodies, the staining will not be affected.

1 Text prepared at the Third European Endoscopy Forum, which was supported by an educational grant from Olympus, in Faro, Portugal, June 8 - 10, 2001.

References

  • 1 Bond J H. Clinical evidence for the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, and the management of patients with colorectal adenomas.  Semin Gastrointest Dis. 2000;  11 176-184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kudo S. Early colorectal cancer. Detection of depressed types of colorectal carcinoma. Tokyo; Igaku-Shoin, Medical Publishers 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Mitooka H. Flat neoplasms in the adenocarcinoma sequence in Japan.  Semin Gastrointest Dis. 2000;  11 238-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rembacken B, Fujii T, Cairns A, et al. Flat and depressed colonic neoplasms: a prospective study of 1000 colonoscopies in the UK.  Lancet. 2000;  355 1211-1214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kudo S, Kashida H, Tamura T. Early colorectal cancer: flat or depressed type.  J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;  15 D66-D70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tamegai Y, Kudo S, Kusaka H, et al. Developmental process of depressed type colorectal cancers (abstract).  Gut. 2000;  32 (Suppl. 1) E263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Umetani N, Sasaki S, Masaki T, et al. Involvement of APC and K-ras mutation in nonpolypoid colorectal tumorigenesis.  Br J Cancer. 2000;  82 9-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Van Wyk R, Slezak P, Hayes V M, et al. Somatic mutations of the APC, KRAS and TP53 genes in nonpolypoid colorectal adenomas.  Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2000;  27 202-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ajiko Y, Watanabe H, Kazama S, Hashidate H, et al. Early colorectal cancer with special reference to the superficial nonpolypoid type from a histopathologic point of view.  World J Surg. 2000;  24 1075-1080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ajioka Y, Watanabe H, Jass J R, et al. Infrequent K-ras codon 12 mutation in serrated adenomas of human colorectum.  Gut. 1998;  42 680-684
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schlemper  R J, Riddell  R H, Kato Y, et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia.  Gut. 2000;  47 251-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rugge M, Correa P, Dixon M F, et al. Gastric dysplasia the Padova international classification.  Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;  24 167-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kobayashi M, Watanabe H, Maeo S, et al. Correlation of histological atypia and cancer sprouting with vascular permeation and lymph nodal metastasis according to our new histological classification of submucosal invasion of colorectal carcinomas (in Japanese).  Stomach Intestine. 1994;  29 1151-1160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Longacre T A, Fenoglio-Preiser C M. Mixed hyperplastic adenomatous polyps/serrated adenomas.  Am J Surg Pathol. 1990;  14 524-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jaramillo E, Watanabe M, Rubio C, et al. Small colorectal serrated adenomas: endoscopic findings.  Endoscopy. 1997;  29 1-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Biermer-Huttmann A E, Walsh M F, McGuckin M A, et al. Immunohistochemical staining patterns of MUC1, MUC2, MUC4, and MUC5AC mucins in hyperplastic polyps, serrated adenomas, and traditional adenomas of the colorectum.  J Histochem Cytochem. 1999;  47 1039-1048
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hiyama T, Yokozaki H, Shimamoto F, et al. Frequent p53 gene mutations in serrated adenomas of the colorectum.  J Pathol. 1998;  186 131-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Petersen S, Thames H D, Nieder C, et al. The results of colorectal cancer treatment by p53 status: treatment-specific overview.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;  44 322-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vaesen H S, Watson P, Mecklin J P, et al. New clinical criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC-Lynch syndrome). Proposed by the International Collaborative Group of HPNCC.  Gastroenterology. 1999;  116 1453-146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gryfe R, Kim H, Hsieh E TK, Aronson M D, et al. Tumor microsatellite instability and clinical outcome in young patients with colorectal cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2000;  342 69-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cawkwell L, Gray S, Murgatroyd H, et al. Choice of managememt strategy for colorectal cancer based on a diagnostic immumohistochemical test for defective mismatch repair.  Gut. 1999;  45 409-415
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Spaepen M, Vankeirsbilck B, Tejpar S, et al. Germline mutations of the mismatch repair genes in Belgian hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer patients (Submitted).  Hum Mutat.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Roncucci L, Pedroni M, Vaccina F, et al. Aberrant crypt foci in colorectal carcinogenesis: Cell and crypt dynamics.  Cell Prolif. 2000;  33 1-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jass J R. Serrated route to colorectal cancer: back street or super highway.  J Pathol. 2001;  193 283-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lynch H T, Smyrk T, McGinn T, et al. Attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP). A phenotypically and genotypically distinctive variant of FAP.  Cancer. 1995;  76 2427-2433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rex D K. Endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer: recent studies from Indiana university.  Indiana Med. 1984;  87 68-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Makinen M J, George S M, Jernvall P, et al. Colorectal carcinoma associated with serrated adenoma - prevalence, histological features and prognosis.  J Pathol. 2001;  193 286-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cairns A, Dixon M F, Martin I G, et al. Flat adenomas. A distinct biological entity and a new definition.  Gut. 1999;  44 (Suppl. 1) A142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kudo S. Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer.  Endoscopy. 1993;  31 455-461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kudo S, Kashida H, Nakajima T, et al. Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of early colorectal cancer.  World J Surg. 1997;  21 694-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gilat T, Fireman Z, Grossman A, et al. Colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis. A population study in central Israel.  Gastroenterology. 1988;  94 870-877
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gyde S N, Prior P, Allan R N, et al. Colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a cohort study of primary referrals from three centers.  Gut. 1988;  29 206-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Friedman S, Rubin P H, Bodian C, et al. Present DH screening and surveillance colonoscopy in chronic Crohn's colitis.  Gastroenterology. 2001;  120 820-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gillen C D, Andrews H A, Prior P, et al. Crohn's disease and colorectal cancer.  Gut. 1994;  35 651-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gillen C D, Walmsley R S, Prior P. Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease: a comparison of the colorectal cancer risk in extensive colitis.  Gut. 1994;  35 1507-1508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bernstein CN,Shanahan F, Weinstein W M. Are we telling patients the truth about surveillance colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis?.  Lancet. 1994;  343 71-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Manning A P, Bulgim O R, Dixon M F, et al. Screening by colonoscopy for colonic epithelial dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease.  Gut. 1987;  28 1489-1494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Connell WR Lennard Jones C E, Williams C B, et al. Factors affecting the outcome of endoscopic surveillance for cancer in ulcerative colitis.  Gastroenterology. 1994;  107 934-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gorfine S R, Bauer J J, Harris M T, et al. Dysplasia complicating chronic ulcerative colitis: is immediate colectomy warranted?.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;  43 1575-1581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sigel J E, Petras R E, Lashner B A, et al. Intestinal adenocarcinoma in Crohn's disease: a report of 30 cases with a focus on coexisting dysplasia.  Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;  23 651-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Schneider A, Stolte M. Clinical and pathomorphological findings in patients with colorectal carcinoma complicating ulcerative colitis.  Z Gastroenterol. 1993;  31 192-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Odze R D. Adenomas and adenoma-like DALMs in chronic ulcerative colitis: a clinical, pathological, and molecular review.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 1746-1750
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Tytgat G N, Dhir V, Gopinath N. Endoscopic appearance of dysplasia and cancer in inflammatory bowel disease.  Eur J Cancer. 1995;  31 1174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Jaramillo E, Watanabe M, Befrits R, et al. Small, flat colorectal neoplasias in long-standing ulcerative colitis detected by high-resolution electronic video endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 95-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Wong N A, Mayer N J, MacKell S, et al. Immunohistochemical assessment of Ki67 and p53 expression assists the diagnosis and grading of ulcerative colitis-related dysplasia.  Histopathology. 2000;  37 108-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kudo S, Hirota S, Nakajima T, et al. Colorectal tumours and pit pattern.  J Clin Pathol. 1994;  47 880-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kudo S, Rubio C A, Teixeira C R, et al. Pit pattern in colorectal neoplasia: endoscopic magnifying view.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 367-373
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Kato S, Fujii T, Koba I, Sano Y, et al. Assessment of colorectal lesions using magnifying colonoscopy and mucosal dye spraying: can significant lesions be distinguished?.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 306-310
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kawano H, Tsura O, Ikeda H, et al. Diagnosis of the level of depth in superficial depressed type colorectal tumors in terms of stereomicroscopic pit patterns.  Internat J Oncol. 1998;  12 769-775
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 O’Brien M J, Winawer  S J, Zauber A G, et al. Blinded assessment of the flat adenoma in the National Polyp Study does not demonstrate an excess risk for high grade dysplasia initially or for advanced adenomas at surveillance.  Gastroenterology. 2001;  120 (5 Suppl. 1) A96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Bauerfeind P. Colon tumors and colonoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 949
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Masaki T, Sheffield J P, Talbot I C, et al. Nonpolypoid adenoma of the large intestine.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 1994;  9 180-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Fernandez E, Bosetti C, La Vecchia C, et al. Sex differences in colorectal cancer mortality in Europe, 1955 - 1996.  Eur J Cancer Prev. 2000;  9 99-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 McMichael A J, Giles G G. Colorectal cancer. In: Sidebottom E, (eds). Trends in cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer Surv 1994 19/20: 77-98
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Wingo P A, Ries L AG, Giovino G A, et al. Annual report to the nation of the status of cancer, 1973 - 1996, with a special section on lung cancer and tobacco smoking.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;  91 675-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 World Cancer Research Fund .Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective.  Washington, DC; American Institute for Cancer Research, 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Giovannuci E, Rimm E B, Stempfer M J, et al. A prospective study of cigarette smoking and risk of colorectal adenoma and colorectal cancer in US men.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;  86 183-191
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Giovannuci E,Colditz G A, Stempfer M J, et al. A prospective study of cigarette smoking and risk of colorectal adenoma and colorectal cancer in US women.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;  86 192-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Slattery M L, Edwards S L, Ma K N, et al. Physical activity and colon cancer: a public health perspective.  Ann Epidemiol,. 1997;  7 137-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 La Vecchia C, Braga C, Franceschi S, et al. Population-attributable risk for colon cancer in Italy.  Nutr Cancer. 1999;  33 196-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 International Agency for Research on Cancer .IARC Handbook of cancer prevention, vol 6. Weight control and physical activity.  Lyon; IARC Press, 2001 In press
    Google Scholar
  • 62 Bergstrom A, Pisani P, Tenet V, et al. Overweight as an avoidable cause of cancer in Europe.  Int J Cancer. 2001;  91 421-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Bruce R W, Giacca A, Medline A. Possible mechanisms relating diet and risk of colon cancer.  Cancer Epidemiol Biol Prev. 2000;  9 1271-1279
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Michels K B, Giovannucci E, Joshipura K J, et al. Prospective study of fruit and vegetable consumption and incidence of colon and rectal cancers.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;  92 1740-1752
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Schottenfeld D, Winamar S J. Cancers of the large intestine. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF (eds). Cancer epidemiology and prevention.  New York; Oxford University Press, 1996 2nd ed: 813-840
    Google Scholar
  • 66 Wilson J MG, Yunger G. The principles and practice of screening for disease.  Geneva; WHO, 1968
    Google Scholar
  • 67 Calman K. Developing screening in the NHS.  J Med Screen. 1994;  2 101-104
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Levin B, Bond J. Colorectal cancer screening. Recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force.  Gastroenterology. 1996;  111 1381-1384
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Rex D K, Johnson A, Lieberman A, et al. Colorectal cancer prevention 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 868-877
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Farrands P A, Hardcastle J D, Chamberlain J, et al. Factors affecting compliance with screening for colorectal cancer.  Community Med. 1984;  6 (1) 12-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Sutton S, Wardle W, Taylor T, et al. Predictors of attendance in the UK flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial.  J Med Screen. 2000;  7 99-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Neilson A, Whynes D. Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer.  Soc Sci Med. 1995;  41 365-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S, et al. Psychosocial influences on older adults’ interest in participating in bowel cancer screening.  Prev Med. 2000;  31 323-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Mandel J, Bond J, Church T, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood.  N Engl J Med. 1993;  328 1365-1371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Mandel J, Church T, Ederer F, et al. Colorectal cancer mortality: Effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;  91 434-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Hardcastle J, Chamberlain J, Robinson M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.  Lancet. 1996;  348 1472-1477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test.  Lancet. 1996;  348 1467-1471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Rex D, Cutler C, Lemmel G, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates and adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Mandel J, Church T, Bond J, et al. The effect of fecal occult blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2000;  343 1603-1607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Hart A, Kudo S, Mackay E, et al. Flat adenomas exist in asymptomatic people - important implications for colorectal-cancer screening programs.  Gut. 1998;  43 229-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Robinson M, Hardcastle J, Moss S, et al. The risks of screening: data from the Nottingham randomised controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer.  Gut. 1999;  45 588-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Atkin W. Screening for colorectal cancer: the heart of the matter.  Gut. 1999;  45 480-481
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Thiis-Evensen E, Hoff G, Sauar J, et al. Population-based surveillance by colonoscopy: effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer. Telemark Polyp Study I.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1999;  34 414-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Waye J, Kahn O, Auerbach M. Complications of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1996;  6 343-377
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Anderson M, Pasha T, Leighton J. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 3418-3422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. Systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult.  BMJ. 1998;  317 559-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Selby J V, Friedman G D, Quesenberry C J, et al. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer.  Engl J Med. 1992;  326 653-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Atkin W, Edwards R, Wardle J, et al. Investigators MF-ST. UK randomised trial of “once only” flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: baseline results.  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 (Suppl. 1) E1
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Senore C, Segnan N, Rossini F, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer by once-only sigmoidoscopy: a feasibility study in Turin, Italy.  J Med Screen. 1996;  3 72-78
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Winawer S J, Zauber A G, O'Brien M J, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy.  N Engl J Med. 1993;  329 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Muller A, Sonnenberg A. Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy.  Ann Intern Med. 1995;  123 904-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Kavanagh A, Giovannucci E, Fuchs C, et al. Screening endoscopy and risk of colorectal cancer in United States men.  Cancer Causes Control. 1998;  9 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Gilbertsen V A, Nelms J M. The prevention of invasive cancer of the rectum.  Cancer. 1978;  41 1137-1139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Atkin W S, Morson B C, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas (see comments).  N Engl J Med. 1992;  326 658-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Newcomb P A, Norfleet R G, Storer B E, et al. Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality.  J Natl Cancer lnst. 1992;  84 1572-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Friedman G D, Collen M F, Fireman B H. Multiphasic Health Checkup Evaluation: a 16-year follow-up.  J Chron Dis. 1986;  39 453-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Wagner J L, Tunis S, Brown M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. In: Young GP, Rozen P, Levin B (eds). Prevention and early detection of colon cancer.  London; WB Saunders, 1996: 321-356
    Google Scholar
  • 98 Torrance G W, Thomas W H, Sackett D L. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs.  Health Serv Res. 1972;  7 118-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Rich J S, Black W C. When should we stop screening?.  Eff Clin Pract. 2000;  3 78-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Loeve F, Brown M L, Boer R, et al. Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;  92 557-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Khandker R K, Dulski J D, Kilpatrick J B, et al. A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults.  Intl J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;  16 799-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Frazier A L, Golditz G A, Fuchs C S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population.  JAMA. 2000;  284 1954-1961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Sonnenberg A, Delcó F, Inadomi J M. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 2000;  133 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Provenzale D, Homan R K, Oddone E Z. Screening colonoscopy in average risk individuals is cost-effective compared with other practices (abstract).  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Gold M R, Siegel J E, Russell L B. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.  New York; Oxford University Press, 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 106 Winawer S J, Fletcher R H, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 594-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 van der Maas P J, de Konig J G, van Ineveld B M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.  Int J Cancer. 1989;  43 1055-1060
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Sonnenberg A, Delcó F, Bauerfeind P. Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer?.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 2268-2274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Burn J, Chapman P D, Bishop D T, et al. Susceptibility markers in colorectal cancer. In: Miller AB, Bartsch H, Boffetta P, et al. (eds). Biomarkers in Cancer Chemoprevention.  Lyon; IARC Press, 2001: 131-137
    Google Scholar
  • 110 Potter J D. Colorectal cancer: molecules and populations.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;  91 916-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Bruce W R, Giacca A, Medline A. Possible mechanisms relating to diet and risk of colon cancer.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;  9 1271-1279
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Corpet D E, Parnaud G. Polyethylene-glycol, a potent suppressor of azoxymethane-induced colonic aberrant crypt foci in rats.  Carcinogenesis. 1999;  20 915-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Naigamwalla D, Chia M C, Tran T T, et al. Polyethylene glycol 8000 and colon carcinogenesis: inhibition in the F344 rat, promotion in the Min mouse.  Cancer Res. 2000;  60 6856-6858
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Alberts D S, Martinez M E, Roe D J, et al. Lack of effect of a high-fiber cereal supplement on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Phoenix Colon Cancer Prevention Physicians’ Network.  N Engl J Med. 2000;  342 1156-1162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Schatzkin A, Lanza E, Corle D, et al. Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fiber diet on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Polyp Prevention Trial Study Group.  N Engl J Med. 2000;  342 1149-1155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Eaden J, Abrams K, Ekbom A, et al. Colorectal cancer prevention in ulcerative colitis: a case-control study.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;  14 145-153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Chinery R, Coffey R J, Graves-Deal R, et al. Prostaglandin J2 and 15-deoxy-delta-12,14-prostaglandin J2 induce proliferation of cyclooxygenase-depleted colorectal cancer cells.  Cancer Res. 1999;  59 2739-2746
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Erickson B A, Longo W E, Panesar N, et al. The effect of selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors on intestinal epithelial cell mitogenesis.  J Surg Res. 1999;  81 101-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 International Agency for Research on Cancer .IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, vol 1. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  Lyon; IARC Press, 1997: 1-202
    Google Scholar
  • 120 Vainio H, Bianchini F. Prevention of disease with pharmaceuticals.  Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;  88 111-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 121 International Agency for Research on Cancer .IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, vol 2. Carotenoids.  Lyon; IARC Press, 1998: 1-326
    Google Scholar
  • 122 Marshall J R. Beta-carotene: a miss for epidemiology.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;  91 2068-2069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 123 Bussey H J, DeCosse J J, Deschner E E, et al. A randomized trial of ascorbic acid in polyposis coli.  Cancer. 1982;  50 1434-1439
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 124 Malila N, Virtamo J, Virtanen M, et al. The effect of alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene supplementation on colorectal adenomas in middle-aged male smokers.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;  8 489-493
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 125 Albanes D, Malila N, Taylor P R, et al. Effects of supplemental alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene on colorectal cancer: results from a controlled trial (Finland).  Cancer Causes Control. 2000;  11 197-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 126 DeFronzo R A, Ferrannini E. Insulin resistance. A multifaceted syndrome responsible for NIDDM, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.  Diabetes Care. 1991;  14 173-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 127 Sturmer T, Glynn R J, Lee I M, et al. Aspirin use and colorectal cancer: post-trial follow-up data from the Physicians’ Health Study.  Ann Intern Med. 1998;  128 713-720
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 128 Steinbach G, Lynch P M, Phillips R K, et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis.  N Engl J Med. 2000;  342 1946-1952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

1 Text prepared at the Third European Endoscopy Forum, which was supported by an educational grant from Olympus, in Faro, Portugal, June 8 - 10, 2001.

R. Lambert, M.D.

Descriptive Epidemiology Unit
International Agency for Research on Cancer

150 cours Albert Thomas
Lyon 69372 cedex 08
France


Fax: + 33-4-72738650

Email: lambert@iarc.fr

      >