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
Letters

Screening for colorectal cancer

Sidney J. Winawer and Ann G. Zauber
CMAJ April 03, 2001 164 (7) 967-968;
Sidney J. Winawer
Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann G. Zauber
Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
Loading

Charles Wright, Brian Budenholzer, Gordon Brock, Vydas Gurekas and Steven Latosinsky state that colorectoral screening is associated with substantial harms and few benefits. They do not support the views of the Ontario Expert Panel on Colorectal Cancer Screening, which, after reviewing all the evidence on benefit and harms, recommended colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing for average-risk people 50 years old and older.1 The US Preventive Services Task Force, the American Cancer Society, an Australian task force, the European Group for Colorectal Cancer Screening and a consortium of US gastroenterology and surgical societies also recommended screening.2 The evidence included a 33% reduction in mortality for annual fecal occult blood test screening.3 If this reduction in mortality were applied to Ontario, approximately 750 fewer people would die of colorectal cancer each year.

Ultimately all of us will die. The goal of a screening program is to postpone death and provide for quality life-years. The letter writers argue that colorectal cancer screening does not have significant benefits, has no impact on total mortality, carries excessive harms and is too costly. This is an extremely negative perspective that dismisses the strong evidence in favour of screening that has accumulated over the past 25 years.

The lack of a demonstrated impact on overall mortality emphasized by Latosinsky and Budenholzer is understandable considering that colorectal cancer mortality represents only 3% of overall mortality. We do not argue against strategies that would reduce mortality from other causes; individual evidence-based mortality-reducing strategies should be incorporated into an integrated program of wellness. The goal of a screening trial is to reduce mortality from the disease under study without causing any excess mortality. This goal was met by all 3 fecal occult blood test trials. Mandel recently showed that fecal occult blood testing reduces the incidence of, as well as mortality from, colorectal cancer.4 Although Atkin noted that there was a slight increase in the number of deaths from ischemic heart disease in the screening trials,5 this difference was not statistically significant.6

The relative magnitudes of benefits and harms are a personal judgement. We believe the benefits are large; Wright, Brock and Gurekas, and Prasad Koduri see them as small. We agree that all screening programs have harms.3 The intent of our statement regarding harms was to indicate that these harms do not erase the benefits; colorectal cancer screening has a net benefit.7 A study of harms and benefits in a large colorectal cancer screening trial demonstrated no investigation-related mortality.7 Of the 6 colonoscopy complications, 5 were in patients from whom polyps were removed.7 Since polypectomy has been shown to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer,8 harms were almost entirely in patients who were most likely to benefit. In that trial the number screened to prevent 1 colorectal cancer death was 747 in 7.8 years, and 1 person was harmed for every colorectal cancer death prevented.7 These data refute the argument that the harms of screening equal the benefits. This trial utilized primary care physicians in the community, which addresses the statement by Brock and Gurekas that all trials were in tertiary care settings and thus the findings cannot be extrapolated to community settings.

We agree with Latosinsky that colorectal cancer screening is costly, but so is the management of advanced colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer screening has been shown to be cost-effective in the United States;3 Ontario needs to determine whether this is true for its population. We certainly agree that people living in Ontario should be given the facts regarding benefits and harms and they should decide if they wish to be screened. We stated in our commentary that “ensuring that patients are fully informed about the harms and benefits of screening is an essential part of the screening strategy.” Adverse consequences of screening must be recognized by community physicians and the public as part of a cancer prevention approach that has an overall benefit.7

References

  1. 1.↵
    Ontario Expert Panel on Colorectal Cancer Screening. Colorectal cancer in Ontario 1971–1996. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario; 1999.
  2. 2.↵
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG. Colorectal cancer screening: Now is the time [editorial]. CMAJ 2000;163(5):543-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    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
  4. 4.↵
    Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, Ederer F, Geisser MS, Mongin SJ, et al. Effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1603-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Atkin WS. Screening for colorectal cancer: the heart of the matter. Gut 1999;45:480-1.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F. Screening for colorectal cancer [letter]. N Engl J Med 1993; 329(18):1353-4.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Robinson MHE, Hardcastle JD, Moss SM, Amar SS, Chamberlain JO, Armitage NCM, et al. The risks of screening data from the Nottingham randomized controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 1999;45:588-92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O'Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993:329:1977-81.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 164, Issue 7
3 Apr 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Newsletter (1038-1045)

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
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 for colorectal cancer
(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 for colorectal cancer
Sidney J. Winawer, Ann G. Zauber
CMAJ Apr 2001, 164 (7) 967-968;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Screening for colorectal cancer
Sidney J. Winawer, Ann G. Zauber
CMAJ Apr 2001, 164 (7) 967-968;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Moving surgical care out of hospitals to reduce wait times
  • Coexisting failures do not diminish the stature of a giant
  • Dare we hope
Show more Letters

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