Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized trial involving 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those assigned to no screening.

Background Older patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience chemotherapy dose reductions or discontinuation. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) predicts survival and chemotherapy completion in patients with cancer, but the benefit of geriatric interventions remains unexplored. Methods The GERICO study is a randomised Phase 3 trial including patients ≥70 years receiving adjuvant or first-line palliative chemotherapy for CRC. Vulnerable patients (G8 questionnaire ≤14 points) were randomised 1:1 to CGA-based interventions or standard care, along with guideline-based chemotherapy. The primary outcome was chemotherapy completion without dose reductions or delays. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, survival and quality of life (QoL). Results Of 142 patients, 58% received adjuvant and 42% received first-line palliative chemotherapy. Interventions included medication changes (62%), nutritional therapy (51%) and physiotherapy (39%). More interventional patients completed scheduled chemotherapy compared with controls (45% vs. 28%, P  = 0.0366). Severe toxicity occurred in 39% of controls and 28% of interventional patients ( P  = 0.156). QoL improved in interventional patients compared with controls with the decreased burden of illness ( P  = 0.048) and improved mobility ( P  = 0.008). Conclusion Geriatric interventions compared with standard care increased the number of older, vulnerable patients with CRC completing adjuvant chemotherapy, and may improve the burden of illness and mobility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT 02748811.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Previous analyses have only reported follow-up after flexible sigmoidoscopy for a maximum of 12 years. We aimed to examine colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening and 17 years of follow-up. In this multicentre randomised trial (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial), done between Nov 14, 1994, and March 30, 1999, 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would probably attend screening if invited, were randomly assigned (1:2) to an intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or a control group (not contacted). Randomisation was done centrally in blocks of 12, and stratified by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The nature of the intervention did not allow the staff to be masked to arm of the trial; however, randomisation was done in batches so that the control group and participants not yet randomised were unaware of their allocation status. The primary outcomes were incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were estimated for intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 28352761. Our cohort analysis included 170 034 people: 112 936 in the control group and 57 098 in the intervention group, 40 621 (71%) of whom were screened and 16 477 (29%) were not screened. During screening and a median of 17·1 years' follow-up, colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 1230 individuals in the intervention group and 3253 in the control group, and 353 individuals in the intervention group versus 996 individuals in the control group died from colorectal cancer. In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence was reduced by 26% (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·70–0·80]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group and colorectal cancer mortality was reduced by 30% (0·70 [0·62–0·79]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group. In per-protocol analyses, adjusted for non-compliance, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were 35% (HR 0·65 [95% CI 0·59–0·71]) and 41% (0·59 [0·49–0·70]) lower in the screened group. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy continues to provide substantial protection from colorectal cancer diagnosis and death, with protection lasting at least 17 years. National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation.

A stool test that measures mutant KRAS, abnormal gene methylation, and hemoglobin detected significantly more colorectal cancers than a commercial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) but had more false positive results. Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death and disease among men and women in the United States. 1 The underlying neoplastic processes of colorectal carcinogenesis lend themselves to screening. 2 Evidence supports and guidelines endorse several tests and strategies, 3 – 5 and screening for colorectal cancer has been found to be cost-effective. 5 – 7 Despite the supporting evidence, recommendations, and availability of several screening tests, a substantial proportion of the U.S. population is not up to date with screening. 8 A simple, noninvasive test with high sensitivity for both colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions might increase uptake and adherence rates, which could improve . . .

After nearly 12 years of follow-up, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial has shown that screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal-cancer incidence by 21% and mortality by 26%. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. 1 Colorectal-cancer mortality 2 – 4 and incidence 5 , 6 are reduced with screening by means of fecal occult-blood testing. Endoscopic screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy is more sensitive than fecal testing for the detection of adenomatous polyps, the precursor lesions of colorectal cancer. 7 – 9 Three European randomized trials of flexible sigmoidoscopy have been performed. 10 In the United Kingdom, one-time screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy significantly reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer (by 23%) and associated mortality (by 31%). 11 In Italy, an 18% reduction in incidence and a nonsignificant 22% . . .

In the international randomised phase 3 CORRECT trial (NCT01103323), regorafenib significantly improved overall survival versus placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Of the 760 patients in CORRECT, 111 were Asian (mostly Japanese). This phase 3 trial was done to assess regorafenib in a broader population of Asian patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer than was studied in CORRECT. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done in 25 hospitals in mainland China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, we recruited Asian patients aged 18 years or older with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer who had received at least two previous treatment lines or were unable to tolerate standard treatments. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 3 months, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, without other uncontrolled medical disorders. We randomly allocated patients (2:1; with a computer-generated unicentric randomisation list [prepared by the study funder] and interactive voice response system; block size of six; stratified by metastatic site [single vs multiple organs] and time from diagnosis of metastatic disease [<18 months vs ≥18 months]) to receive oral regorafenib 160 mg once daily or placebo on days 1–21 of each 28 day cycle; patients in both groups were also to receive best supportive care. Participants, investigators, and the study funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and we analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01584830. Between April 29, 2012, and Feb 6, 2013, we screened 243 patients and randomly assigned 204 patients to receive either regorafenib (136 [67%]) or placebo (68 [33%]). After a median follow-up of 7·4 months (IQR 4·3–12·2), overall survival was significantly better with regorafenib than it was with placebo (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·40–0·77, one-sided p=0·00016; median overall survival 8·8 months [95% CI 7·3–9·8] in the regorafenib group vs 6·3 months [4·8–7·6] in the placebo group). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 132 (97%) of 136 regorafenib recipients and 31 (46%) of 68 placebo recipients. The most frequent grade 3 or higher regorafenib-related adverse events were hand–foot skin reaction (22 [16%] of 136 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hypertension (15 [11%] vs two [3%] of 68 patients in the placebo group), hyperbilirubinaemia (nine [7%] vs one [1%]), hypophosphataemia (nine [7%] vs none), alanine aminotransferase concentration increases (nine [7%] vs none), aspartate aminotransferase concentration increases (eight [6%] vs none), lipase concentration increases (six [4%] vs one [1%]), and maculopapular rash (six [4%] vs none). Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 12 (9%) patients in the regorafenib group and three (4%) in the placebo group. This phase 3 trial is the second to show an overall survival benefit with regorafenib compared with placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantiating the role of regorafenib as an important treatment option for patients whose disease has progressed after standard treatments. In this trial, preceding standard treatments did not necessarily include targeted treatments. Adverse events were generally consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib in this setting. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

A one-dose-fits-all approach to use of aspirin has yielded only modest benefits in long-term prevention of cardiovascular events, possibly due to underdosing in patients of large body size and excess dosing in patients of small body size, which might also affect other outcomes. Using individual patient data, we analysed the modifying effects of bodyweight (10 kg bands) and height (10 cm bands) on the effects of low doses (≤100 mg) and higher doses (300–325 mg or ≥500 mg) of aspirin in randomised trials of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular events. We stratified the findings by age, sex, and vascular risk factors, and validated them in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention of stroke. Additionally, we assessed whether any weight or height dependence was evident for the effect of aspirin on 20-year risk of colorectal cancer or any in-trial cancer. Among ten eligible trials of aspirin in primary prevention (including 117 279 participants), bodyweight varied four-fold and trial median weight ranged from 60·0 kg to 81·2 kg (p<0·0001). The ability of 75–100 mg aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events decreased with increasing weight (pinteraction=0·0072), with benefit seen in people weighing 50–69 kg (hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·65–0·85]) but not in those weighing 70 kg or more (0·95 [0·86–1·04]; 1·09 [0·93–1·29] for vascular death). Furthermore, the case fatality of a first cardiovascular event was increased by low-dose aspirin in people weighing 70 kg or more (odds ratio 1·33 [95% CI 1·08–1·64], p=0·0082). Higher doses of aspirin (≥325 mg) had the opposite interaction with bodyweight (difference pinteraction=0·0013), reducing cardiovascular events only at higher weight (pinteraction=0·017). Findings were similar in men and women, in people with diabetes, in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention, and in relation to height (pinteraction=0·0025 for cardiovascular events). Aspirin-mediated reductions in long-term risk of colorectal cancer were also weight dependent (pinteraction=0·038). Stratification by body size also revealed harms due to excess dosing: risk of sudden death was increased by aspirin in people at low weight for dose (pinteraction=0·0018) and risk of all-cause death was increased in people weighing less than 50 kg who were receiving 75–100 mg aspirin (HR 1·52 [95% CI 1·04–2·21], p=0·031). In participants aged 70 years or older, the 3-year risk of cancer was also increased by aspirin (1·20 [1·03–1·47], p=0·02), particularly in those weighing less than 70 kg (1·31 [1·07–1·61], p=0·009) and consequently in women (1·44 [1·11–1·87], p=0·0069). Low doses of aspirin (75–100 mg) were only effective in preventing vascular events in patients weighing less than 70 kg, and had no benefit in the 80% of men and nearly 50% of all women weighing 70 kg or more. By contrast, higher doses of aspirin were only effective in patients weighing 70 kg or more. Given that aspirin's effects on other outcomes, including cancer, also showed interactions with body size, a one-dose-fits-all approach to aspirin is unlikely to be optimal, and a more tailored strategy is required. Wellcome Trust and National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile. Therefore, we aimed to test the efficacy of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination and compared with a placebo, in individuals with sporadic colorectal neoplasia detected at colonoscopy. In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial, patients aged 55–73 years who were identified during colonoscopy as being at high risk in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP; ≥3 adenomas if at least one was ≥10 mm in diameter or ≥5 adenomas if these were <10 mm in diameter) were recruited from 53 BCSP endoscopy units in England, UK. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) using a secure web-based server to receive 2 g EPA-free fatty acid (FFA) per day (either as the FFA or triglyceride), 300 mg aspirin per day, both treatments in combination, or placebo for 12 months using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by BCSP site. Research staff and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR; the proportion of participants with any adenoma) at 1 year surveillance colonoscopy analysed in all participants with observable follow-up data using a so-called at-the-margins approach, adjusted for BCSP site and repeat endoscopy at baseline. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN05926847. Between Nov 11, 2011, and June 10, 2016, 709 participants were randomly assigned to four treatment groups (176 to placebo, 179 to EPA, 177 to aspirin, and 177 to EPA plus aspirin). Adenoma outcome data were available for 163 (93%) patients in the placebo group, 153 (85%) in the EPA group, 163 (92%) in the aspirin group, and 161 (91%) in the EPA plus aspirin group. The ADR was 61% (100 of 163) in the placebo group, 63% (97 of 153) in the EPA group, 61% (100 of 163) in the aspirin group, and 61% (98 of 161) in the EPA plus aspirin group, with no evidence of any effect for EPA (risk ratio [RR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·87 to 1·12; risk difference −0·9%, −8·8 to 6·9; p=0·81) or aspirin (RR 0·99 (0·87 to 1·12; risk difference −0·6%, −8·5 to 7·2; p=0·88). EPA and aspirin were well tolerated (78 [44%] of 176 had ≥1 adverse event in the placebo group compared with 82 [46%] in the EPA group, 68 [39%] in the aspirin group, and 76 [45%] in the EPA plus aspirin group), although the number of gastrointestinal adverse events was increased in the EPA alone group at 146 events (compared with 85 in the placebo group, 86 in the aspirin group, and 68 in the aspirin plus placebo group). Six upper-gastrointestinal bleeding events were reported across the treatment groups (two in the EPA group, three in the aspirin group, and one in the placebo group). Neither EPA nor aspirin treatment were associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients with at least one colorectal adenoma. Further research is needed regarding the effect on colorectal adenoma number according to adenoma type and location. Optimal use of EPA and aspirin might need a precision medicine approach to adenoma recurrence. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rates decreased by up to 50% in older age groups in the USA in the era of the widespread uptake of screening colonoscopy, despite adverse trends in CRC risk factors and increasing CRC incidence at younger ages. However, reported first results from a randomized trial, the NordICC study, suggested rather modest effects of screening colonoscopy. As outlined in this Perspective, the apparent discrepancy between real-world and trial evidence could be explained by strong attenuation of effect estimates from screening endoscopy trials by several factors, including limited screening adherence, widespread uptake of colonoscopy outside the screening offers and the inclusion of prevalent, non-preventable CRC cases in reported numbers of incident cases. Alternative interpretations of screening endoscopy trial results accounting for prevalence bias are in line with trends in CRC incidence reduction in countries offering CRC screening, and should encourage more widespread implementation and uptake of effective CRC screening. This Perspective explores the relationship between screening endoscopy and colorectal cancer incidence, examining available evidence and offering insights into the discrepancies between real-world and trial evidence alongside potential pitfalls with interpreting the data.

High-dose aspirin (≥500 mg daily) reduces long-term incidence of colorectal cancer, but adverse effects might limit its potential for long-term prevention. The long-term effectiveness of lower doses (75–300 mg daily) is unknown. We assessed the effects of aspirin on incidence and mortality due to colorectal cancer in relation to dose, duration of treatment, and site of tumour. We followed up four randomised trials of aspirin versus control in primary (Thrombosis Prevention Trial, British Doctors Aspirin Trial) and secondary (Swedish Aspirin Low Dose Trial, UK-TIA Aspirin Trial) prevention of vascular events and one trial of different doses of aspirin (Dutch TIA Aspirin Trial) and established the effect of aspirin on risk of colorectal cancer over 20 years during and after the trials by analysis of pooled individual patient data. In the four trials of aspirin versus control (mean duration of scheduled treatment 6·0 years), 391 (2·8%) of 14 033 patients had colorectal cancer during a median follow-up of 18·3 years. Allocation to aspirin reduced the 20-year risk of colon cancer (incidence hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 0·60–0·96, p=0·02; mortality HR 0·65, 0·48–0·88, p=0·005), but not rectal cancer (0·90, 0·63–1·30, p=0·58; 0·80, 0·50–1·28, p=0·35). Where subsite data were available, aspirin reduced risk of cancer of the proximal colon (0·45, 0·28–0·74, p=0·001; 0·34, 0·18–0·66, p=0·001), but not the distal colon (1·10, 0·73–1·64, p=0·66; 1·21, 0·66–2·24, p=0·54; for incidence difference p=0·04, for mortality difference p=0·01). However, benefit increased with scheduled duration of treatment, such that allocation to aspirin of 5 years or longer reduced risk of proximal colon cancer by about 70% (0·35, 0·20–0·63; 0·24, 0·11–0·52; both p<0·0001) and also reduced risk of rectal cancer (0·58, 0·36–0·92, p=0·02; 0·47, 0·26–0·87, p=0·01). There was no increase in benefit at doses of aspirin greater than 75 mg daily, with an absolute reduction of 1·76% (0·61–2·91; p=0·001) in 20-year risk of any fatal colorectal cancer after 5-years scheduled treatment with 75–300 mg daily. However, risk of fatal colorectal cancer was higher on 30 mg versus 283 mg daily on long-term follow-up of the Dutch TIA trial (odds ratio 2·02, 0·70–6·05, p=0·15). Aspirin taken for several years at doses of at least 75 mg daily reduced long-term incidence and mortality due to colorectal cancer. Benefit was greatest for cancers of the proximal colon, which are not otherwise prevented effectively by screening with sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. None.