Explore the vast range of titles available.

Observational studies report that higher intake of dietary fibre (a heterogeneous mix including non-starch polysaccharides and resistant starches) is associated with reduced risk of colorectal cancer, but no randomised trials with prevention of colorectal cancer as a primary endpoint have been done. We assessed the effect of resistant starch on the incidence of colorectal cancer. In the CAPP2 study, individuals with Lynch syndrome were randomly assigned in a two-by-two factorial design to receive 600 mg aspirin or aspirin placebo or 30 g resistant starch or starch placebo, for up to 4 years. Randomisation was done with a block size of 16. Post-intervention, patients entered into double-blind follow-up; participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint for this analysis was development of colorectal cancer in participants randomly assigned to resistant starch or resistant-starch placebo with both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This study is registered, ISRCTN 59521990. 463 patients were randomly assigned to receive resistant starch and 455 to receive resistant-starch placebo. At a median follow-up 52·7 months (IQR 28·9–78·4), 53 participants developed 61 primary colorectal cancers (27 of 463 participants randomly assigned to resistant starch, 26 of 455 participants assigned to resistant-starch placebo). Intention-to-treat analysis of time to first colorectal cancer showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·40 (95% CI 0·78–2·56; p=0·26) and Poisson regression accounting for multiple primary events gave an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1·15 (95% CI 0·66–2·00; p=0·61). For those completing 2 years of intervention, per-protocol analysis yielded a HR of 1·09 (0·55–2·19, p=0·80) and an IRR of 0·98 (0·51–1·88, p=0·95). No information on adverse events was gathered during post-intervention follow-up. Resistant starch had no detectable effect on cancer development in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer. Dietary supplementation with resistant starch does not emulate the apparently protective effect of diets rich in dietary fibre against colorectal cancer. European Union, Cancer Research UK, Bayer Corporation, National Starch and Chemical Co, UK Medical Research Council, Newcastle Hospitals Trustees, Cancer Council of Victoria Australia, THRIPP South Africa, The Finnish Cancer Foundation, SIAK Switzerland, and Bayer Pharma.

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.

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% . . .

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. We tested the hypothesis that only one flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between 55 and 64 years of age can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 14 UK centres. 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would accept an invitation for screening, were randomly allocated to the intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or the control group (not contacted). Randomisation by sequential number generation was done centrally in blocks of 12, with stratification by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The primary outcomes were the incidence of colorectal cancer, including prevalent cases detected at screening, and mortality from colorectal cancer. Analyses were intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN28352761. 113 195 people were assigned to the control group and 57 237 to the intervention group, of whom 112 939 and 57 099, respectively, were included in the final analyses. 40 674 (71%) people underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. During screening and median follow-up of 11·2 years (IQR 10·7–11·9), 2524 participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (1818 in control group vs 706 in intervention group) and 20 543 died (13 768 vs 6775; 727 certified from colorectal cancer [538 vs 189]). In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence in the intervention group was reduced by 23% (hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·70–0·84) and mortality by 31% (0·69, 0·59–0·82). In per-protocol analyses, adjusting for self-selection bias in the intervention group, incidence of colorectal cancer in people attending screening was reduced by 33% (0·67, 0·60–0·76) and mortality by 43% (0·57, 0·45–0·72). Incidence of distal colorectal cancer (rectum and sigmoid colon) was reduced by 50% (0·50, 0·42–0·59; secondary outcome). The numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145–277) and 489 (343–852), respectively. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit. Medical Research Council, National Health Service R&D, Cancer Research UK, KeyMed.

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.

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.

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.

In this 30-year follow-up of the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study, in which 46,551 participants were randomly assigned to screening with fecal occult-blood testing or usual care, screening reduced colorectal-cancer mortality but did not influence all-cause mortality. Estimates from multiple, large, randomized trials of colorectal-cancer screening with fecal occult-blood testing consistently show a reduction in colorectal-cancer mortality of 15 to 33%. 1 – 4 The longest follow-up reported to date is 18 to 20 years. 5 – 7 Whether the effect of screening on colorectal-cancer mortality is sustained and whether it applies to all age groups and both sexes are unknown. Furthermore, none of the trials have shown a reduction in all-cause mortality, and one meta-analysis showed a significant increase in mortality not related to colorectal cancer. 8 We updated the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study 9 through 30 years of follow-up to . . .

In this placebo-controlled trial involving patients with recently diagnosed adenomas, daily supplementation with vitamin D 3 (1000 IU), calcium (1200 mg), or both did not reduce the risk of recurrent colorectal adenomas over 3 to 5 years. Vitamin D, an essential nutrient that is important for bone mineralization and calcium homeostasis, 1 also has effects beyond bone and calcium. Many studies have shown it to be antineoplastic, particularly in the colorectum. In in vitro studies, vitamin D and its analogues have been shown to inhibit proliferation, induce differentiation, inhibit angiogenesis, and promote apoptosis in epithelial tissues. 2 , 3 High vitamin D intake inhibits experimental carcinogenesis, 2 , 3 even in animals that are vitamin D–replete. 4 Observational studies of vitamin D intake 5 – 7 and serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D 8 – 10 have shown inverse associations between these measures and the risk of colorectal . . .

Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual’s lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.