Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

Search

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

Advanced Search

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

Rebuttal

Sidney J. Winawer and Ann Zauber
CMAJ September 05, 2000 163 (5) 547;
Sidney J. Winawer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann Zauber
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Kenneth Marshall uses misleading data, unfounded assumptions and exaggerations to support his bias against screening.1 Calculating the number of people needed to be screened to save one life is misleading when it is used as the only measure of screening benefit. A more complete assessment of screening benefit is years of useful life gained. Using a computer simulation model of the clinical consequence of screening, we can estimate that 12 325 life-years would be saved per 100 000 people screened with fecal occult blood testing annually.2 Death is inevitable, but premature death can be prevented. Death from colorectal cancer constitutes about 3% of the total mortality; therefore, the effect of colorectal cancer screening on total mortality cannot be demonstrated with the comparatively small sample size of clinical trials.

To say that screening distorts the communal value system is unfounded. What is preferable — a family focused on wellness, or family devastated by a lethal disease? Colorectal cancer screening is as cost-effective as mammography. There is also a cost of failure to screen, failure to detect early curable cancer, failure to prevent morbidity, and failure to find and remove screen-detected adenomatous polyps with the resultant decrease in incidence of colorectal cancer. These polyps are found by screening, not by random chance.2 With rising medical costs and decreasing screening costs, screening is actually becoming cost-saving.2,3,4,5

Marshall exaggerates possible screening harms. Psychological and medical harms have been studied and have not been demonstrated.6,7 False reassurance with a program of annual fecal occult blood testing is uncommon; sensitivity for cancer with this approach is over 90%.8 Screening has been shown to have a net benefit in reducing colorectal cancer mortality.2 Marshall‚s statement of a 7% mortality following surgical resection of polyps is inflated. Resection is rarely needed today, but in those rare instances when it is required it has demonstrated an excellent risk‐benefit ratio.7

Dr. Marshall raises the specter of colonoscopy complication rates, which have fallen considerably and are now 1 to 2 per 1000 cases.2 Complications from diagnostic colonoscopy are rare; almost all result from polypectomy, which is performed to prevent cancer. No cardiopulmonary deaths occurred after the 13 000 colonoscopies in the Minnesota trial.9 Only 2 cases of hepatitis C transmission have been reported,10 both of which involved improper disinfection of the instrument. The introduction of colonoscopy, its demonstrated safety after 30 years of experience, and standards for training, clinical application and disinfection of equipment now make screening feasible.11

An estimated 2250 people in Ontario will die of colorectal cancer this year.5 Their families should not have to bear the loss. We now have screening techniques with acceptable sensitivity and specificity, accurate diagnostic methods and definitive treatment with colonoscopic polypectomy and cancer surgery. We can intervene and make a difference in their lives. Losing even one life prematurely is a tragedy.12

Footnotes

  • Drs. Winawer and Zauber respond to Dr. Marshall:

    This article has been peer reviewed.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Marshall KG. Population-based fecal occult blood screening for colon cancer: Will the benefits outweigh the harm? CMAJ 2000;163(5):545-6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    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
  3. 3.↵
    Wagner JL, Tunis S, Brown M, Ching A, Almeida R. The cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. In: Young G, Levin B, Rozen A, editors. Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer. London: WB Saunders; 1996. p. 321-56.
  4. 4.↵
    Lieberman DA. Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 1995;109:1781-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Ontario Expert Panel on Colorectal Cancer Screening. Colorectal cancer in Ontario 1971‐1996. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario; 1999. Available: www.cancercare.on.ca/ocr/colorectal (accessed 2000 Aug 3).
  6. 6.↵
    Thiis-Evensen E, Wihelmsen I, Hoff GS, Blomhoff S, Sauar J. The psychological effect of attending a screening program for colorectal polyps. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999;34:103-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Robinson MHE, Hardcastle JD, Moss SM, Amar SS, Chamberlain JO, Armitage NCM, et al. The risks of screening: data from the Notingham randomised controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 1999;45:588-92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Church TR, Ederer F, Mandel JS. Fecal occult screening in the Minnesota Study: sensitivity of the screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1440-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Mandel JS, Bond JH, Bradley M, Snover DC, Church TR, Williams S, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictivity of the Hemoccult test in screening for colorectal cancers: The University of Minnesota‚s Colon Cancer Control Study. Gastroenterology 1989;97:597-600.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Bronowicki JP, Venard V, Botté C, Monhoven N, Gastin I, Chone L, et al. Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus during colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 1997;337:237-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Assessment. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy. Manchester (MA): The Society; 1993.
  12. 12.↵
    Winawer SJ, Taylor N. Healing lessons. New York: Routledge; 1998.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 163, Issue 5
5 Sep 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.
Rebuttal
(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
Rebuttal
Sidney J. Winawer, Ann Zauber
CMAJ Sep 2000, 163 (5) 547;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Rebuttal
Sidney J. Winawer, Ann Zauber
CMAJ Sep 2000, 163 (5) 547;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Screening for colorectal cancer
  • Screening for colorectal cancer
  • Screening for colorectal cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The 2003 Canadian recommendations for dyslipidemia management: Revisions are needed
  • Rebuttal
  • The analysis by Manuel and colleagues creates controversy with headlines, not data
Show more Controversy

Similar Articles

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
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule 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.

Powered by HighWire