Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Screening colonoscopy: Is it time?

Jerome B. Simon
CMAJ November 14, 2000 163 (10) 1277-1278;
Jerome B. Simon
Dr. Simon is Professor of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Colonic screening is a hot topic these days, and rightly so. Colorectal malignancy is a major cause of cancer deaths, yet most cases are preventable. The majority of cases evolve insidiously from benign adenomatous polyps, which typically grow slowly and silently for several years before they turn malignant. Endoscopic polypectomy can abort this adenoma–carcinoma sequence and dramatically decrease the incidence of cancer.1

On the basis of this simple but important concept, periodic surveillance colonoscopy is widely practised for patients known to be at increased tumour risk — for example, those who have already had adenomatous polyps removed or who have a strong family history of colon cancer. But what about the “average risk” general population of middle-aged and elderly people from whom the large majority of bowel cancers actually arise? Screening strategies for this all-important group have mainly focused on fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy, but both of these tests are flawed.

Long-term FOBT surveillance has been found to provide a modest mortality benefit in controlled clinical trials,2 but this is countered by limited sensitivity and specificity, low predictive value, disappointing public and professional compliance and arguable cost-effectiveness.3 Although FOBT screening is endorsed by several influential professional organizations, especially in the United States,4,5 it remains controversial.6,7

Controlled trials of sigmoidoscopy are lacking, but persuasive evidence from case–control studies suggests a 60%–70% mortality benefit for up to a decade from cancers within reach of the instrument.8 Those who favour FOBT surveillance therefore also advise flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years beginning at the age of 50,4,5 although issues such as cost and compliance require further evaluation. Sigmoidoscopy has a major weakness, however — its limited reach. Even the modern 60- to 70-cm flexible instruments overlook about half of all colorectal lesions.4

If sigmoidoscopy is effective but examines only half of the bowel, why not go “whole hog” and use full colonoscopy to screen the general population? There have been a few proponents of this viewpoint, but until recently the idea seemed too radical to seriously contemplate.

However, 2 recent articles9,10 in the New England Journal of Medicine have dramatically raised the ante on this question. In a multicentre Veterans Affairs study conducted by David Lieberman and colleagues9 over 3000 asymptomatic subjects, aged 50 to 75 years, underwent colonoscopic examinations; 37.5% had at least 1 adenoma and 10.5% had advanced neoplasia (defined as an adenoma with a diameter of at least 1 cm or with villous features, high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer). Thomas Imperiale and colleagues10 similarly screened almost 2000 asymptomatic subjects over the age of 50 and found advanced neoplasia in 5.6%. The higher prevalence in Lieberman's study may partly reflect the inclusion of subjects at greater risk because of a family history of colon cancer, but nevertheless it is clear that a significant minority of asymptomatic individuals harbour dangerous colonic polyps or early malignancy. Importantly, in both studies fully half of the patients with advanced lesions in the proximal portion of the colon had no adenomas in the distal bowel,9,10 so sigmoidoscopic results for these subjects would have been normal.

Does this mean that we should start colonoscoping all healthy middle-aged people? In an editorial appearing in the same issue of the journal, Daniel Podolsky11 concludes that it does and states, as others have as well, that sigmoidoscopic screening is as illogical as examining only 1 breast with mammography to screen women for breast cancer. Although catchy, this is an invalid analogy because colonoscopy is a far more complex exercise than sigmoidoscopy. Bowel preparation takes much longer and is more uncomfortable; the procedure itself requires more skill and is more difficult and prolonged; patient discomfort requires conscious sedation with attendant recovery time and professionally manned observation units; proportionate risks are much higher (although absolute risks are low); and costs are much higher. Perhaps most importantly, economic barriers to colonoscopic screening extend well beyond the procedure's higher technical and professional fees. A large cadre of additional skilled professionals would need to be trained because gastroenterologists and endoscoping surgeons are already overwhelmed with work. New or expanded endoscopic units would have to be built, along with extensive infrastructure support. The overall resource consumption would probably be prohibitive and beyond the ability of an already-burdened health care system to afford, even when discounted by the program's undoubted benefits. Even sigmoidoscopic screening of the general population poses major economic and logistic problems, but in this case half a loaf may actually be better than the whole.

The impressive data from Lieberman et al.9 and Imperiale et al.10 focus attention on larger and challenging issues. Can physicians reconcile their obligation to do what is best for individual patients with the potentially detrimental collective impact it may have on the overall health care system? Can societal will overcome the growing gap between scientific justification and economic reality? How high a priority should cancer (and other) screening hold among other competing claims on our resources? The issues are major and the stakes are high. Will science and logic determine the outcome ... or will politics and lobbying by interest groups? Stay tuned.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O'Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977-81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, Kewenter J, Weller D, Silagy C. A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. BMJ 1998;317:559-65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Simon JB. Fecal occult blood testing: clinical value and limitations. Gastroenterologist 1998;6:66-78.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112:594-642.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Byers T, Levin B, Rothenberger D, Dodd GD, Smith RA. American Cancer Society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: update 1997. American Cancer Society Detection and Treatment Advisory Group on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 1997;47:154-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Simon JB, Fletcher RH. Clinical debate. Should all people over the age of 50 have regular fecal occult blood tests? N Engl J Med 1998;338:1151-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Faivre J, Tazi MA, Autier P, Bleiberg H. Should there be mass screening using faecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer? Eur J Cancer 1998;34:773-80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Ransohoff DF, Lang CA. Sigmoidoscopic screening in the 1990s. JAMA 1993;269:1278-81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:162-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, Larkin GN, Rogge JD, Ransohoff DF. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 2000;343:169-74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Podolsky DK. Going the distance — the case for true colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2000;343:207-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 163, Issue 10
14 Nov 2000
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Screening colonoscopy: Is it time?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Screening colonoscopy: Is it time?
Jerome B. Simon
CMAJ Nov 2000, 163 (10) 1277-1278;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Screening colonoscopy: Is it time?
Jerome B. Simon
CMAJ Nov 2000, 163 (10) 1277-1278;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Primary care -- the hard parts
  • Soins primaires - les cotes difficiles
  • Colorectal cancer screening: you can't be positive about a negative result
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Time for a regulatory framework for pediatric medications in Canada
  • Optimizing timing of completion of the Surgical Safety Checklist to account for emergence from anesthesia
  • Shifting from cytology to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire