one-time flexible sigs decrease mortality

this week's JAMA had a population-based clinical trial in Norway of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (see colon ca screening flex sig jama 2014 in dropbox, or doi:10.1001/jama.2014.8266​​). 100K men and women aged 50-64 were randomized to once-only flex sig (10.2K people), combo of flex sig and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT, also 10.2K people) or control (78.2K), with screening in those 55-64 beginning in 1999-2000 and those 50-54 yo in 2001 and followed til 2012.  those with positive screen (cancer, adenoma, polyp>1cm, pos FOBT) were offered colonoscopy. results:

    --adherence to screening was 63%
    ​--after 10.9 yrs, 71 died from colorectal cancer in screened groups (31.4 deaths/100K person-yrs) and 330 in the control group (43.1 deaths/100K person-yrs), abs diff of 11.7 and HR of 0.73 (0.56-0.94). ie, there was a difference of about 1 death/1000 individuals by sig screening
    --incidence of colon cancer in 253 in the screened group (112.6 cases/100K person-yrs) and 1086 in the controls (141.0 cases/100K person-yrs)​, abs diff of 28.4 and HR of 0.80 (0.70-0.92)
    --flex sig was beneficial in both age groups: cancer incidence in 50-54yo had HR of 0.68 (0.49-0.94) and in those 55-64 HR was 0.83 (0.71-0.96).
    --adding the FOBT did not change the results
    ​--no complications of flex sig (done in 20.5K men and women), though of the 2816 colonoscopies done, (19.5% of those screened), there were 6 perforations and 4 were admitted for postpolypectomy bleeding
    ​--of note, there was no difference between screening and controls until 9 years later (for both mortality and cancer detection), which might suggest that the results would be more impressive with longer followup.

so, these hazard ratios are pretty comparable to the existing studies (although this was a truly population-based study, unlike the other trials which consisted of volunteers). also first study to show benefit in those 50-54 years old. the big issue for us is that we tend to do colonoscopies as our first line, even though the complication rate is much higher (as in this study), and the only good data for cancer-specific mortality rate reductions are based on sigmoidoscopy studies. the issue, of course, is that sigs miss proximal tumors, and around 20% of patients with serious proximal lesions have no distal lesions (and therefore be missed by just doing sigs). the rationale for the FOBT is that proximal lesions bleed more than distal ones and FOBT might help uncover them, though the results above showed no benefit from adding FOBT. also the clinical benefit of finding/resecting proximal tumors is significantly less than with distal tumors, in several studies. this study did find a 10% reduction in proximal colorectal cancer vs 24% reduction for distal cancers (proximal cancers presumably found on colonoscopy). the advent of stool DNA testing might shift the curve more away from routine colonoscopy screening. so, bottom line: we have largely adopted colonoscopy screening based on what makes sense (and to the delight of the gastroenterologists/hospitals -- "scoping for dollars" as one of my GI friends put it), though sigs are reasonable alternatives. we should probably discuss this with patients, though there is an uphill battle given the dominant culture on this. maybe will change with new tests in the future.

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more