Colorectal Cancer

I, like every pediatrician I know, believe that breast milk is the best nutrition for human newborns. Its balance of nutritive elements and its role in preventing of a wide range of illnesses are so great that we are still learning the extent of their magnitude. It just makes sense that a mother’s milk is most well suited for her baby.

I am a bit less unambiguous about breastfeeding. By that I mean the process of providing breast milk to an infant directly from its mother’s breast. Before you yank my AAP membership card, let me make it clear that I think every woman should consider breastfeeding her infant. But we must accept that in a few situations, even with help from caring and enlightened health care providers and family members, breastfeeding doesn’t work as well as we would have hoped. Fortunately, there are alternatives.

My reservations about the process are few, and until recently I have had an unwaveringly positive attitude toward the safety of breast milk. The cause of my little bit of uncertainty arrived in a recent study by two researchers at the Dana Farber Institute in Boston, in which the investigators examining the health histories of more than 150,000 women found that those who were breastfed incurred a 23% greater risk of developing colorectal cancer when they reached adulthood. A younger cohort within that larger group had a dramatic 40% increased risk of developing high-risk cancer before reaching age 55.

The population the investigators studied came from the large Nurses’ Health Study II, a well-known repository of longitudinal health data. The researchers reported that they included biometric data and a large collection of lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake, and diet in their calculations. However, breastfeeding continued to register the highest association. Interestingly, the investigators found that women who were breastfed for 9 months or longer had twice the risk of colorectal cancer as those who breastfed for from 4 to 8 months.

The study population was all women and predominantly white. However, in the general population it is the non-Hispanic white population that is experiencing the greatest increase in incidence. Of course, the study could not answer whether this association with breastfeeding also existed in minority populations.

The researchers suspect that what they are seeing is a reflection of the Westernization of the American lifestyle. One of the researchers is interested in the gut biome of infants and plans to further the investigation in that direction. Could some substance from the environment be concentrating in breast milk? Or is something missing in breast milk? She points out that, while formulas are generally fortified with vitamin D, breast milk is not.

As concerning as the results of this study may sound, the authors are very careful to urge mothers to continue to breastfeed and choose it as their first choice for feeding their babies. I have been pleasantly surprised that this study has not gotten widespread media attention because bad news travels fast. I have chosen to share it with you because at some point you may begin getting questions from concerned parents.

While apparently well done, this study is just the beginning. Like any good research, it poses more questions than it answers. For us as pediatricians it means we should continue to recommend breast milk as the first food. But, we must stay alert as further research looks deeper into this association.

We should also take advantage of our special access to young parents, a demographic that less frequently sees a physician for preventive care. For whatever reason colorectal cancer is occurring at younger ages. When we have the opportunity we should be reminding 40-year-olds not to wait until age 50 to screen for colorectal cancer, particularly if they have a family history of the disease.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I, like every pediatrician I know, believe that breast milk is the best nutrition for human newborns. Its balance of nutritive elements and its role in preventing of a wide range of illnesses are so great that we are still learning the extent of their magnitude. It just makes sense that a mother’s milk is most well suited for her baby.

I am a bit less unambiguous about breastfeeding. By that I mean the process of providing breast milk to an infant directly from its mother’s breast. Before you yank my AAP membership card, let me make it clear that I think every woman should consider breastfeeding her infant. But we must accept that in a few situations, even with help from caring and enlightened health care providers and family members, breastfeeding doesn’t work as well as we would have hoped. Fortunately, there are alternatives.

My reservations about the process are few, and until recently I have had an unwaveringly positive attitude toward the safety of breast milk. The cause of my little bit of uncertainty arrived in a recent study by two researchers at the Dana Farber Institute in Boston, in which the investigators examining the health histories of more than 150,000 women found that those who were breastfed incurred a 23% greater risk of developing colorectal cancer when they reached adulthood. A younger cohort within that larger group had a dramatic 40% increased risk of developing high-risk cancer before reaching age 55.

The population the investigators studied came from the large Nurses’ Health Study II, a well-known repository of longitudinal health data. The researchers reported that they included biometric data and a large collection of lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake, and diet in their calculations. However, breastfeeding continued to register the highest association. Interestingly, the investigators found that women who were breastfed for 9 months or longer had twice the risk of colorectal cancer as those who breastfed for from 4 to 8 months.

The study population was all women and predominantly white. However, in the general population it is the non-Hispanic white population that is experiencing the greatest increase in incidence. Of course, the study could not answer whether this association with breastfeeding also existed in minority populations.

The researchers suspect that what they are seeing is a reflection of the Westernization of the American lifestyle. One of the researchers is interested in the gut biome of infants and plans to further the investigation in that direction. Could some substance from the environment be concentrating in breast milk? Or is something missing in breast milk? She points out that, while formulas are generally fortified with vitamin D, breast milk is not.

As concerning as the results of this study may sound, the authors are very careful to urge mothers to continue to breastfeed and choose it as their first choice for feeding their babies. I have been pleasantly surprised that this study has not gotten widespread media attention because bad news travels fast. I have chosen to share it with you because at some point you may begin getting questions from concerned parents.

While apparently well done, this study is just the beginning. Like any good research, it poses more questions than it answers. For us as pediatricians it means we should continue to recommend breast milk as the first food. But, we must stay alert as further research looks deeper into this association.

We should also take advantage of our special access to young parents, a demographic that less frequently sees a physician for preventive care. For whatever reason colorectal cancer is occurring at younger ages. When we have the opportunity we should be reminding 40-year-olds not to wait until age 50 to screen for colorectal cancer, particularly if they have a family history of the disease.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I, like every pediatrician I know, believe that breast milk is the best nutrition for human newborns. Its balance of nutritive elements and its role in preventing of a wide range of illnesses are so great that we are still learning the extent of their magnitude. It just makes sense that a mother’s milk is most well suited for her baby.

I am a bit less unambiguous about breastfeeding. By that I mean the process of providing breast milk to an infant directly from its mother’s breast. Before you yank my AAP membership card, let me make it clear that I think every woman should consider breastfeeding her infant. But we must accept that in a few situations, even with help from caring and enlightened health care providers and family members, breastfeeding doesn’t work as well as we would have hoped. Fortunately, there are alternatives.

My reservations about the process are few, and until recently I have had an unwaveringly positive attitude toward the safety of breast milk. The cause of my little bit of uncertainty arrived in a recent study by two researchers at the Dana Farber Institute in Boston, in which the investigators examining the health histories of more than 150,000 women found that those who were breastfed incurred a 23% greater risk of developing colorectal cancer when they reached adulthood. A younger cohort within that larger group had a dramatic 40% increased risk of developing high-risk cancer before reaching age 55.

The population the investigators studied came from the large Nurses’ Health Study II, a well-known repository of longitudinal health data. The researchers reported that they included biometric data and a large collection of lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake, and diet in their calculations. However, breastfeeding continued to register the highest association. Interestingly, the investigators found that women who were breastfed for 9 months or longer had twice the risk of colorectal cancer as those who breastfed for from 4 to 8 months.

The study population was all women and predominantly white. However, in the general population it is the non-Hispanic white population that is experiencing the greatest increase in incidence. Of course, the study could not answer whether this association with breastfeeding also existed in minority populations.

The researchers suspect that what they are seeing is a reflection of the Westernization of the American lifestyle. One of the researchers is interested in the gut biome of infants and plans to further the investigation in that direction. Could some substance from the environment be concentrating in breast milk? Or is something missing in breast milk? She points out that, while formulas are generally fortified with vitamin D, breast milk is not.

As concerning as the results of this study may sound, the authors are very careful to urge mothers to continue to breastfeed and choose it as their first choice for feeding their babies. I have been pleasantly surprised that this study has not gotten widespread media attention because bad news travels fast. I have chosen to share it with you because at some point you may begin getting questions from concerned parents.

While apparently well done, this study is just the beginning. Like any good research, it poses more questions than it answers. For us as pediatricians it means we should continue to recommend breast milk as the first food. But, we must stay alert as further research looks deeper into this association.

We should also take advantage of our special access to young parents, a demographic that less frequently sees a physician for preventive care. For whatever reason colorectal cancer is occurring at younger ages. When we have the opportunity we should be reminding 40-year-olds not to wait until age 50 to screen for colorectal cancer, particularly if they have a family history of the disease.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with limited life expectancy are just as likely to undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as those with longer life expectancy, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used national survey data to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with CRC screening in 25,888 community-dwelling adults aged 65-84 according to their predicted 10-year mortality risk.
• They estimated 10-year mortality risk using a validated index. From the lowest to highest quintiles, mortality risk was 12%, 24%, 39%, 58%, and 79%, respectively.
• Investigators determined the proportion of screening performed in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, defined as 10-year mortality risk ≥ 50% (that is, quintiles 4 and 5).

TAKEAWAY:

• In this cohort of older adults previously not up to date with CRC screening, the overall prevalence of past-year screening was 38.5%.
• The prevalence of past-year CRC screening decreased with advancing age but did not differ significantly by 10-year mortality risk. From lowest to highest quintile, prevalence was 39.5%, 40.6%, 38.7%, 36.4%, and 35.4%, respectively.
• The likelihood of CRC screening did not differ between adults in the lowest vs. highest quintile of 10-year mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.05).
• More than one-quarter (27.9%) of past-year screening occurred in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, and 50.7% of adults aged 75-84 years had life expectancy less than 10 years at the time of screening.
• Paradoxically, the prevalence of invasive screening increased with lowered life expectancy among adults aged 70-79 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that health status and life expectancy may be overlooked in current CRC screening programs, and personalized screening incorporating individual life expectancy may improve the value of screening,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, division of digestive and liver diseases, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey data were self-reported and were not validated by medical records. The data did not include information to identify individuals who were at higher risk for CRC or to trace prior CRC screening history. It was not possible to reliably classify test indication (screening vs. surveillance vs. diagnostic).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed serving as a consultant or on advisory boards for Exact Sciences, Universal Dx, Roche, and Freenome. Another disclosed consulting for Freenome.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with limited life expectancy are just as likely to undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as those with longer life expectancy, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used national survey data to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with CRC screening in 25,888 community-dwelling adults aged 65-84 according to their predicted 10-year mortality risk.
• They estimated 10-year mortality risk using a validated index. From the lowest to highest quintiles, mortality risk was 12%, 24%, 39%, 58%, and 79%, respectively.
• Investigators determined the proportion of screening performed in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, defined as 10-year mortality risk ≥ 50% (that is, quintiles 4 and 5).

TAKEAWAY:

• In this cohort of older adults previously not up to date with CRC screening, the overall prevalence of past-year screening was 38.5%.
• The prevalence of past-year CRC screening decreased with advancing age but did not differ significantly by 10-year mortality risk. From lowest to highest quintile, prevalence was 39.5%, 40.6%, 38.7%, 36.4%, and 35.4%, respectively.
• The likelihood of CRC screening did not differ between adults in the lowest vs. highest quintile of 10-year mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.05).
• More than one-quarter (27.9%) of past-year screening occurred in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, and 50.7% of adults aged 75-84 years had life expectancy less than 10 years at the time of screening.
• Paradoxically, the prevalence of invasive screening increased with lowered life expectancy among adults aged 70-79 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that health status and life expectancy may be overlooked in current CRC screening programs, and personalized screening incorporating individual life expectancy may improve the value of screening,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, division of digestive and liver diseases, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey data were self-reported and were not validated by medical records. The data did not include information to identify individuals who were at higher risk for CRC or to trace prior CRC screening history. It was not possible to reliably classify test indication (screening vs. surveillance vs. diagnostic).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed serving as a consultant or on advisory boards for Exact Sciences, Universal Dx, Roche, and Freenome. Another disclosed consulting for Freenome.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with limited life expectancy are just as likely to undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as those with longer life expectancy, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used national survey data to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with CRC screening in 25,888 community-dwelling adults aged 65-84 according to their predicted 10-year mortality risk.
• They estimated 10-year mortality risk using a validated index. From the lowest to highest quintiles, mortality risk was 12%, 24%, 39%, 58%, and 79%, respectively.
• Investigators determined the proportion of screening performed in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, defined as 10-year mortality risk ≥ 50% (that is, quintiles 4 and 5).

TAKEAWAY:

• In this cohort of older adults previously not up to date with CRC screening, the overall prevalence of past-year screening was 38.5%.
• The prevalence of past-year CRC screening decreased with advancing age but did not differ significantly by 10-year mortality risk. From lowest to highest quintile, prevalence was 39.5%, 40.6%, 38.7%, 36.4%, and 35.4%, respectively.
• The likelihood of CRC screening did not differ between adults in the lowest vs. highest quintile of 10-year mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.05).
• More than one-quarter (27.9%) of past-year screening occurred in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, and 50.7% of adults aged 75-84 years had life expectancy less than 10 years at the time of screening.
• Paradoxically, the prevalence of invasive screening increased with lowered life expectancy among adults aged 70-79 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that health status and life expectancy may be overlooked in current CRC screening programs, and personalized screening incorporating individual life expectancy may improve the value of screening,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, division of digestive and liver diseases, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey data were self-reported and were not validated by medical records. The data did not include information to identify individuals who were at higher risk for CRC or to trace prior CRC screening history. It was not possible to reliably classify test indication (screening vs. surveillance vs. diagnostic).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed serving as a consultant or on advisory boards for Exact Sciences, Universal Dx, Roche, and Freenome. Another disclosed consulting for Freenome.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis finds that tea drinking may reduce the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 24%, but the estimate is “uncertain,” and the actual effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% to an increase of 18%, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies (11 cohort, three case-control, and one randomized controlled trial) with nearly 2.7 million participants.
• The studies were conducted in Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania between 1986 and 2015 and included black and green tea.
• Tea consumption was dichotomized as < 1 cup vs. ≥ 1 cups daily. A random effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• No statistically significant association was found between tea consumption and CRC risk (relative risk, 0.76).
• By geographic region, results of an American subgroup analysis suggested tea drinking might be protective against CRC (RR, 0.33), while data from the United Kingdom (RR, 1.45) and Italian (RR, 1.15) subgroups had opposite results.
• In subgroups by tea type, green tea was associated with a lower CRC risk (RR, 0.05).
• Sensitivity analysis revealed that the effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% (RR, 0.49) to an increase of 18% (RR, 1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, this meta-analysis suggests that tea consumption may not be linked to the development of CRC. These relationships still need to be confirmed by additional well-designed large prospective studies and randomized clinical trials,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Yu Huang and Qiang Chen, with the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was a high level of heterogeneity in the original studies, as well as variations in the quantity and types of tea consumed and in the design and quality of the studies. Some studies did not account for potentially important variables, such as alcohol use and diet.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Hebei Provincial Natural Science Foundation and the Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis finds that tea drinking may reduce the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 24%, but the estimate is “uncertain,” and the actual effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% to an increase of 18%, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies (11 cohort, three case-control, and one randomized controlled trial) with nearly 2.7 million participants.
• The studies were conducted in Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania between 1986 and 2015 and included black and green tea.
• Tea consumption was dichotomized as < 1 cup vs. ≥ 1 cups daily. A random effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• No statistically significant association was found between tea consumption and CRC risk (relative risk, 0.76).
• By geographic region, results of an American subgroup analysis suggested tea drinking might be protective against CRC (RR, 0.33), while data from the United Kingdom (RR, 1.45) and Italian (RR, 1.15) subgroups had opposite results.
• In subgroups by tea type, green tea was associated with a lower CRC risk (RR, 0.05).
• Sensitivity analysis revealed that the effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% (RR, 0.49) to an increase of 18% (RR, 1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, this meta-analysis suggests that tea consumption may not be linked to the development of CRC. These relationships still need to be confirmed by additional well-designed large prospective studies and randomized clinical trials,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Yu Huang and Qiang Chen, with the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was a high level of heterogeneity in the original studies, as well as variations in the quantity and types of tea consumed and in the design and quality of the studies. Some studies did not account for potentially important variables, such as alcohol use and diet.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Hebei Provincial Natural Science Foundation and the Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis finds that tea drinking may reduce the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 24%, but the estimate is “uncertain,” and the actual effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% to an increase of 18%, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies (11 cohort, three case-control, and one randomized controlled trial) with nearly 2.7 million participants.
• The studies were conducted in Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania between 1986 and 2015 and included black and green tea.
• Tea consumption was dichotomized as < 1 cup vs. ≥ 1 cups daily. A random effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• No statistically significant association was found between tea consumption and CRC risk (relative risk, 0.76).
• By geographic region, results of an American subgroup analysis suggested tea drinking might be protective against CRC (RR, 0.33), while data from the United Kingdom (RR, 1.45) and Italian (RR, 1.15) subgroups had opposite results.
• In subgroups by tea type, green tea was associated with a lower CRC risk (RR, 0.05).
• Sensitivity analysis revealed that the effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% (RR, 0.49) to an increase of 18% (RR, 1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, this meta-analysis suggests that tea consumption may not be linked to the development of CRC. These relationships still need to be confirmed by additional well-designed large prospective studies and randomized clinical trials,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Yu Huang and Qiang Chen, with the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was a high level of heterogeneity in the original studies, as well as variations in the quantity and types of tea consumed and in the design and quality of the studies. Some studies did not account for potentially important variables, such as alcohol use and diet.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Hebei Provincial Natural Science Foundation and the Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Not so fast with earlier screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), at least according to one professional group.

The American College of Physicians published updated clinical guidance maintaining 50 as the age when clinicians should start screening for CRC in patients who are asymptomatic and at average risk.

The recommendation conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the recommended age to start screening to age 45.

Although the rate of CRC has increased among adults aged 45-49, the incidence is 35.1 cases per 100,000 people, much lower than among persons aged 50-64 (71.9 per 100,000) and those aged 65-74 (128.9 per 100,000), the guidance notes.

“The net benefit of screening is much less favorable in average-risk adults between ages 45 and 49 years than in those aged 50-75 years,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population.”

The ACP’s updated guidance is provocative and should be considered in the context of other groups’ recommendations, not as superseding them just because it is the most recently published document, according to Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector of the Colon and Rectal Cancer Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“As with a lot of the things we do in medicine, it is balancing risk and potential benefit,” Dr. Meyerhardt said in an interview. “If a patient is informed that at a younger age doing screening is very likely not to find anything and there are some risks to screening, that patient could then weigh the risks and benefit with their provider.”
 

Three screening approaches

The new guidance statement is based on a critical review of existing clinical guidelines, evidence reviews, and modeling studies. The guidance does not apply to patients who have long-standing inflammatory bowel disease and those with a family history of CRC.

The guideline also addresses when clinicians should stop screening – at age 75 – and what types of tests patients should choose from.

After discussing the benefits, harms, cost, availability, and patient preferences, clinicians and patients should select one of three screening approaches, according to the ACP: a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years.

They should avoid CRC screening tests that use stool DNA, CT colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum, according to the guidance.
 

A balancing act

Some physicians view starting screenings at age 45 as a settled argument.

“The entire nation is now focused on increasing screening capacity and getting everyone screened,” said Richard C. Wender, MD, professor and chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the new guidelines. “There is not a controversy about age to start, and I anticipate that this paper won’t create a new one.”

The epidemiology of CRC is changing rapidly, Dr. Wender said.

“While CRC mortality is going down in older age groups, mortality is now rising in younger people,” he said. “While cancer incidence is lower in the 45- to 49-years-old group, the precursors to cancer are present and can be found in a substantial percentage of patients – the same percentage as 50- to 55-year-olds.”

Dr. Meyerhardt said in an interview that the recommendation to start screening at age 45 was reasonable but that more people need to be screened to detect CRC than the older population.

“Ultimately, one’s going to have to consider the various recommendations from these different societies when having a patient in front of you as a primary care or other physician to discuss screening in someone who’s what we call average risk,” he said.

Younger patients who notice any possible symptoms of CRC such as blood in stool or changes in bowel habits should discuss them with a physician, he said.

The ACP also differs from other groups in not recommending stool DNA tests such as Cologuard (Exact Sciences). Dr. Wender said this test is the least cost effective based on comparing adherence for other options. “If Cologuard can lead to higher adherence and there are data suggesting it can, then relative cost-effectiveness looks better.”
 

Why 50

In weighing the risks and benefits of screening, the ACP noted that CRC screening can entail risk for serious bleeding and perforation in the case of colonoscopy.

Overdiagnosis and associated overtreatment, as well as costly follow-ups for findings that are clinically unimportant, are additional factors to consider with various cancer screening tests, said Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, the ACP’s chief science officer and the corresponding author of the updated guidance.

Despite some differences between various groups’ recommendations, Dr. Qaseem saw important similarities.

“We need to get everyone between 50 and 75 screened,” Dr. Qaseem said. On that point, “there is no disagreement.”

One guideline author reported receiving salary from the ACP. Dr. Qaseem reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not so fast with earlier screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), at least according to one professional group.

The American College of Physicians published updated clinical guidance maintaining 50 as the age when clinicians should start screening for CRC in patients who are asymptomatic and at average risk.

The recommendation conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the recommended age to start screening to age 45.

Although the rate of CRC has increased among adults aged 45-49, the incidence is 35.1 cases per 100,000 people, much lower than among persons aged 50-64 (71.9 per 100,000) and those aged 65-74 (128.9 per 100,000), the guidance notes.

“The net benefit of screening is much less favorable in average-risk adults between ages 45 and 49 years than in those aged 50-75 years,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population.”

The ACP’s updated guidance is provocative and should be considered in the context of other groups’ recommendations, not as superseding them just because it is the most recently published document, according to Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector of the Colon and Rectal Cancer Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“As with a lot of the things we do in medicine, it is balancing risk and potential benefit,” Dr. Meyerhardt said in an interview. “If a patient is informed that at a younger age doing screening is very likely not to find anything and there are some risks to screening, that patient could then weigh the risks and benefit with their provider.”
 

Three screening approaches

The new guidance statement is based on a critical review of existing clinical guidelines, evidence reviews, and modeling studies. The guidance does not apply to patients who have long-standing inflammatory bowel disease and those with a family history of CRC.

The guideline also addresses when clinicians should stop screening – at age 75 – and what types of tests patients should choose from.

After discussing the benefits, harms, cost, availability, and patient preferences, clinicians and patients should select one of three screening approaches, according to the ACP: a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years.

They should avoid CRC screening tests that use stool DNA, CT colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum, according to the guidance.
 

A balancing act

Some physicians view starting screenings at age 45 as a settled argument.

“The entire nation is now focused on increasing screening capacity and getting everyone screened,” said Richard C. Wender, MD, professor and chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the new guidelines. “There is not a controversy about age to start, and I anticipate that this paper won’t create a new one.”

The epidemiology of CRC is changing rapidly, Dr. Wender said.

“While CRC mortality is going down in older age groups, mortality is now rising in younger people,” he said. “While cancer incidence is lower in the 45- to 49-years-old group, the precursors to cancer are present and can be found in a substantial percentage of patients – the same percentage as 50- to 55-year-olds.”

Dr. Meyerhardt said in an interview that the recommendation to start screening at age 45 was reasonable but that more people need to be screened to detect CRC than the older population.

“Ultimately, one’s going to have to consider the various recommendations from these different societies when having a patient in front of you as a primary care or other physician to discuss screening in someone who’s what we call average risk,” he said.

Younger patients who notice any possible symptoms of CRC such as blood in stool or changes in bowel habits should discuss them with a physician, he said.

The ACP also differs from other groups in not recommending stool DNA tests such as Cologuard (Exact Sciences). Dr. Wender said this test is the least cost effective based on comparing adherence for other options. “If Cologuard can lead to higher adherence and there are data suggesting it can, then relative cost-effectiveness looks better.”
 

Why 50

In weighing the risks and benefits of screening, the ACP noted that CRC screening can entail risk for serious bleeding and perforation in the case of colonoscopy.

Overdiagnosis and associated overtreatment, as well as costly follow-ups for findings that are clinically unimportant, are additional factors to consider with various cancer screening tests, said Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, the ACP’s chief science officer and the corresponding author of the updated guidance.

Despite some differences between various groups’ recommendations, Dr. Qaseem saw important similarities.

“We need to get everyone between 50 and 75 screened,” Dr. Qaseem said. On that point, “there is no disagreement.”

One guideline author reported receiving salary from the ACP. Dr. Qaseem reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not so fast with earlier screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), at least according to one professional group.

The American College of Physicians published updated clinical guidance maintaining 50 as the age when clinicians should start screening for CRC in patients who are asymptomatic and at average risk.

The recommendation conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the recommended age to start screening to age 45.

Although the rate of CRC has increased among adults aged 45-49, the incidence is 35.1 cases per 100,000 people, much lower than among persons aged 50-64 (71.9 per 100,000) and those aged 65-74 (128.9 per 100,000), the guidance notes.

“The net benefit of screening is much less favorable in average-risk adults between ages 45 and 49 years than in those aged 50-75 years,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population.”

The ACP’s updated guidance is provocative and should be considered in the context of other groups’ recommendations, not as superseding them just because it is the most recently published document, according to Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector of the Colon and Rectal Cancer Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“As with a lot of the things we do in medicine, it is balancing risk and potential benefit,” Dr. Meyerhardt said in an interview. “If a patient is informed that at a younger age doing screening is very likely not to find anything and there are some risks to screening, that patient could then weigh the risks and benefit with their provider.”
 

Three screening approaches

The new guidance statement is based on a critical review of existing clinical guidelines, evidence reviews, and modeling studies. The guidance does not apply to patients who have long-standing inflammatory bowel disease and those with a family history of CRC.

The guideline also addresses when clinicians should stop screening – at age 75 – and what types of tests patients should choose from.

After discussing the benefits, harms, cost, availability, and patient preferences, clinicians and patients should select one of three screening approaches, according to the ACP: a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years.

They should avoid CRC screening tests that use stool DNA, CT colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum, according to the guidance.
 

A balancing act

Some physicians view starting screenings at age 45 as a settled argument.

“The entire nation is now focused on increasing screening capacity and getting everyone screened,” said Richard C. Wender, MD, professor and chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the new guidelines. “There is not a controversy about age to start, and I anticipate that this paper won’t create a new one.”

The epidemiology of CRC is changing rapidly, Dr. Wender said.

“While CRC mortality is going down in older age groups, mortality is now rising in younger people,” he said. “While cancer incidence is lower in the 45- to 49-years-old group, the precursors to cancer are present and can be found in a substantial percentage of patients – the same percentage as 50- to 55-year-olds.”

Dr. Meyerhardt said in an interview that the recommendation to start screening at age 45 was reasonable but that more people need to be screened to detect CRC than the older population.

“Ultimately, one’s going to have to consider the various recommendations from these different societies when having a patient in front of you as a primary care or other physician to discuss screening in someone who’s what we call average risk,” he said.

Younger patients who notice any possible symptoms of CRC such as blood in stool or changes in bowel habits should discuss them with a physician, he said.

The ACP also differs from other groups in not recommending stool DNA tests such as Cologuard (Exact Sciences). Dr. Wender said this test is the least cost effective based on comparing adherence for other options. “If Cologuard can lead to higher adherence and there are data suggesting it can, then relative cost-effectiveness looks better.”
 

Why 50

In weighing the risks and benefits of screening, the ACP noted that CRC screening can entail risk for serious bleeding and perforation in the case of colonoscopy.

Overdiagnosis and associated overtreatment, as well as costly follow-ups for findings that are clinically unimportant, are additional factors to consider with various cancer screening tests, said Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, the ACP’s chief science officer and the corresponding author of the updated guidance.

Despite some differences between various groups’ recommendations, Dr. Qaseem saw important similarities.

“We need to get everyone between 50 and 75 screened,” Dr. Qaseem said. On that point, “there is no disagreement.”

One guideline author reported receiving salary from the ACP. Dr. Qaseem reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the number of cases of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed before age 50 continues to rise, early detection has become increasingly important.

A new study has identified four signs and symptoms that can serve as red flags to facilitate earlier detection of early-onset CRC. The signs and symptoms are abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia.

Two symptoms in particular – rectal bleeding and iron-deficiency anemia – point to the need for timely endoscopy and follow-up, the researchers say.

“Colorectal cancer is not simply a disease affecting older people; we want younger adults to be aware of and act on these potentially very telling signs and symptoms – particularly because people under 50 are considered to be at low risk, and they don’t receive routine colorectal cancer screening,” senior investigator Yin Cao, ScD, with Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, said in a news release.

“It’s also crucial to spread awareness among primary care doctors, gastroenterologists, and emergency medicine doctors,” Dr. Cao added. “To date, many early-onset colorectal cancers are detected in emergency rooms, and there often are significant diagnostic delays with this cancer.”

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Although previous research has identified rectal bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, and rectal/abdominal pain as symptoms of early-onset CRC, most studies “have aggregated symptoms till the time of diagnosis,” which limits their use for early detection, the authors explain.

In the current study, the researchers analyzed data from more than 5,000 cases of early-onset CRC and from more than 22,000 control patients using the IBM MarketScan commercial database.

Dr. Cao and colleagues found that between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis, abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia each indicated an increased risk for early-onset CRC.

Among patients with early-onset CRC, 19.3% presented with one or more of the four red flags between 3 months and 2 years prior to the index date; 15.6% had one symptom, and 3.7% had two or more.

After multivariable adjustment, having one symptom almost doubled the risk for early-onset CRC (odds ratio, 1.94); having two symptoms increased risk by more than threefold (OR, 3.59); and having three or more boosted the risk by more than 6.5-fold (OR, 6.52).

Abdominal pain was associated with a 34% higher risk of early-onset CRC (11.6% among case patients vs. 7.7% among controls; OR, 1.34).

Although not as common, rectal bleeding was associated with the highest odds for early-onset CRC (7.2% case patients vs. 1.3% controls; OR, 5.13).

The other predictive signs and symptoms included diarrhea (2.8% case patients vs. 1.4% controls; OR, 1.43) and iron-deficiency anemia (2.3% case patients vs. 0.9% controls; OR, 2.07).

No differences were observed by gender for each sign or symptom.

Among patients with a red-flag symptom who presented between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis, for those with early-onset CRC, the median diagnostic interval was 8.7 months.

The researchers suggest that clinicians prioritize prompt diagnostic workups for patients younger than 50 who present with rectal bleeding and/or iron-deficiency anemia and that they also keep abdominal pain and diarrhea in mind as early symptoms.

Dr. Cao noted that since most early-onset CRC cases “have been and will continue to be diagnosed after symptom presentation, it is crucial to recognize these red-flag signs and symptoms promptly and conduct a diagnostic workup as soon as possible.

“By doing so, we can diagnose the disease earlier, which in turn can reduce the need for more aggressive treatment and improve patients’ quality of life and survival rates,” said Dr. Cao.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As the number of cases of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed before age 50 continues to rise, early detection has become increasingly important.

A new study has identified four signs and symptoms that can serve as red flags to facilitate earlier detection of early-onset CRC. The signs and symptoms are abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia.

Two symptoms in particular – rectal bleeding and iron-deficiency anemia – point to the need for timely endoscopy and follow-up, the researchers say.

“Colorectal cancer is not simply a disease affecting older people; we want younger adults to be aware of and act on these potentially very telling signs and symptoms – particularly because people under 50 are considered to be at low risk, and they don’t receive routine colorectal cancer screening,” senior investigator Yin Cao, ScD, with Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, said in a news release.

“It’s also crucial to spread awareness among primary care doctors, gastroenterologists, and emergency medicine doctors,” Dr. Cao added. “To date, many early-onset colorectal cancers are detected in emergency rooms, and there often are significant diagnostic delays with this cancer.”

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Although previous research has identified rectal bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, and rectal/abdominal pain as symptoms of early-onset CRC, most studies “have aggregated symptoms till the time of diagnosis,” which limits their use for early detection, the authors explain.

In the current study, the researchers analyzed data from more than 5,000 cases of early-onset CRC and from more than 22,000 control patients using the IBM MarketScan commercial database.

Dr. Cao and colleagues found that between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis, abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia each indicated an increased risk for early-onset CRC.

Among patients with early-onset CRC, 19.3% presented with one or more of the four red flags between 3 months and 2 years prior to the index date; 15.6% had one symptom, and 3.7% had two or more.

After multivariable adjustment, having one symptom almost doubled the risk for early-onset CRC (odds ratio, 1.94); having two symptoms increased risk by more than threefold (OR, 3.59); and having three or more boosted the risk by more than 6.5-fold (OR, 6.52).

Abdominal pain was associated with a 34% higher risk of early-onset CRC (11.6% among case patients vs. 7.7% among controls; OR, 1.34).

Although not as common, rectal bleeding was associated with the highest odds for early-onset CRC (7.2% case patients vs. 1.3% controls; OR, 5.13).

The other predictive signs and symptoms included diarrhea (2.8% case patients vs. 1.4% controls; OR, 1.43) and iron-deficiency anemia (2.3% case patients vs. 0.9% controls; OR, 2.07).

No differences were observed by gender for each sign or symptom.

Among patients with a red-flag symptom who presented between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis, for those with early-onset CRC, the median diagnostic interval was 8.7 months.

The researchers suggest that clinicians prioritize prompt diagnostic workups for patients younger than 50 who present with rectal bleeding and/or iron-deficiency anemia and that they also keep abdominal pain and diarrhea in mind as early symptoms.

Dr. Cao noted that since most early-onset CRC cases “have been and will continue to be diagnosed after symptom presentation, it is crucial to recognize these red-flag signs and symptoms promptly and conduct a diagnostic workup as soon as possible.

“By doing so, we can diagnose the disease earlier, which in turn can reduce the need for more aggressive treatment and improve patients’ quality of life and survival rates,” said Dr. Cao.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As the number of cases of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed before age 50 continues to rise, early detection has become increasingly important.

A new study has identified four signs and symptoms that can serve as red flags to facilitate earlier detection of early-onset CRC. The signs and symptoms are abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia.

Two symptoms in particular – rectal bleeding and iron-deficiency anemia – point to the need for timely endoscopy and follow-up, the researchers say.

“Colorectal cancer is not simply a disease affecting older people; we want younger adults to be aware of and act on these potentially very telling signs and symptoms – particularly because people under 50 are considered to be at low risk, and they don’t receive routine colorectal cancer screening,” senior investigator Yin Cao, ScD, with Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, said in a news release.

“It’s also crucial to spread awareness among primary care doctors, gastroenterologists, and emergency medicine doctors,” Dr. Cao added. “To date, many early-onset colorectal cancers are detected in emergency rooms, and there often are significant diagnostic delays with this cancer.”

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Although previous research has identified rectal bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, and rectal/abdominal pain as symptoms of early-onset CRC, most studies “have aggregated symptoms till the time of diagnosis,” which limits their use for early detection, the authors explain.

In the current study, the researchers analyzed data from more than 5,000 cases of early-onset CRC and from more than 22,000 control patients using the IBM MarketScan commercial database.

Dr. Cao and colleagues found that between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis, abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia each indicated an increased risk for early-onset CRC.

Among patients with early-onset CRC, 19.3% presented with one or more of the four red flags between 3 months and 2 years prior to the index date; 15.6% had one symptom, and 3.7% had two or more.

After multivariable adjustment, having one symptom almost doubled the risk for early-onset CRC (odds ratio, 1.94); having two symptoms increased risk by more than threefold (OR, 3.59); and having three or more boosted the risk by more than 6.5-fold (OR, 6.52).

Abdominal pain was associated with a 34% higher risk of early-onset CRC (11.6% among case patients vs. 7.7% among controls; OR, 1.34).

Although not as common, rectal bleeding was associated with the highest odds for early-onset CRC (7.2% case patients vs. 1.3% controls; OR, 5.13).

The other predictive signs and symptoms included diarrhea (2.8% case patients vs. 1.4% controls; OR, 1.43) and iron-deficiency anemia (2.3% case patients vs. 0.9% controls; OR, 2.07).

No differences were observed by gender for each sign or symptom.

Among patients with a red-flag symptom who presented between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis, for those with early-onset CRC, the median diagnostic interval was 8.7 months.

The researchers suggest that clinicians prioritize prompt diagnostic workups for patients younger than 50 who present with rectal bleeding and/or iron-deficiency anemia and that they also keep abdominal pain and diarrhea in mind as early symptoms.

Dr. Cao noted that since most early-onset CRC cases “have been and will continue to be diagnosed after symptom presentation, it is crucial to recognize these red-flag signs and symptoms promptly and conduct a diagnostic workup as soon as possible.

“By doing so, we can diagnose the disease earlier, which in turn can reduce the need for more aggressive treatment and improve patients’ quality of life and survival rates,” said Dr. Cao.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Do android therapists dream of electric employees?

Robots. It can be tough to remember that, when they’re not dooming humanity to apocalypse or just telling you that you’re doomed, robots have real-world uses. There are actual robots in the world, and they can do things beyond bend girders, sing about science, or run the navy.

University of Cambridge

Look, we’ll stop with the pop-culture references when pop culture runs out of robots to reference. It may take a while.

Robots are indelibly rooted in the public consciousness, and that plays into our expectations when we encounter a real-life robot. This leads us into a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, who developed a robot-led mental well-being program that a tech company utilized for 4 weeks. Why choose a robot? Well, why spring for a qualified therapist who requires a salary when you could simply get a robot to do the job for free? Get with the capitalist agenda here. Surely it won’t backfire.

The 26 people enrolled in the study received coaching from one of two robots, both programmed identically to act like mental health coaches, based on interviews with human therapists. Both acted identically and had identical expressions. The only difference between the two was their appearance. QTRobot was nearly a meter tall and looked like a human child; Misty II was much smaller and looked like a toy.

People who received coaching from Misty II were better able to connect and had a better experience than those who received coaching from QTRobot. According to those in the QTRobot group, their expectations didn’t match reality. The robots are good coaches, but they don’t act human. This wasn’t a problem for Misty II, since it doesn’t look human, but for QTRobot, the participants were expecting “to hell with our orders,” but received “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.” When you’ve been programmed to think of robots as metal humans, it can be off-putting to see them act as, well, robots.

That said, all participants found the exercises helpful and were open to receiving more robot-led therapy in the future. And while we’re sure the technology will advance to make robot therapists more empathetic and more human, hopefully scientists won’t go too far. We don’t need depressed robots.

Birthing experience is all in the mindset

Alexa, play Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46 - I. Morning Mood.

Birth.

Giving birth is a common experience for many, if not most, female mammals, but wanting it to be a pleasurable one seems distinctly human. There are many methods and practices that may make giving birth an easier and enjoyable experience for the mother, but a new study suggests that the key could be in her mind.

joruba/Thinkstock

The mindset of the expectant mother during pregnancy, it seems, has some effect on how smooth or intervention-filled delivery is. If the mothers saw their experience as a natural process, they were less likely to need pain medication or a C-section, but mothers who viewed the experience as more of a “medical procedure” were more likely to require more medical supervision and intervention, according to investigators from the University of Bonn (Germany).

Now, the researchers wanted to be super clear in saying that there’s no right or wrong mindset to have. They just focused on the outcomes of those mindsets and whether they actually do have some effect on occurrences.

Apparently, yes.

“Mindsets can be understood as a kind of mental lense that guide our perception of the world around us and can influence our behavior,” Dr. Lisa Hoffmann said in a statement from the university. “The study highlights the importance of psychological factors in childbirth.”

The researchers surveyed 300 women with an online tool before and after delivery and found the effects of the natural process mindset lingered even after giving birth. They had lower rates of depression and posttraumatic stress, which may have a snowballing effect on mother-child bonding after childbirth.

Preparation for the big day, then, should be about more than gathering diapers and shopping for car seats. Women should prepare their minds as well. If it’s going to make giving birth better, why not?

Becoming a parent is going to create a psychological shift, no matter how you slice it.

Giant inflatable colon reported in Utah

Do not be alarmed! Yes, there is a giant inflatable colon currently at large in the Beehive State, but it will not harm you. The giant inflatable colon is in Utah as part of Intermountain Health’s “Let’s get to the bottom of colon cancer tour” and he only wants to help you.

Hiroshi Watanabe/Getty Images

The giant inflatable colon, whose name happens to be Collin, is 12 feet long and weighs 113 pounds. March is Colon Cancer Awareness Month, so Collin is traveling around Utah and Idaho to raise awareness about colon cancer and the various screening options. He is not going to change local weather patterns, eat small children, or take over local governments and raise your taxes.

Instead, Collin is planning to display “portions of a healthy colon, polyps or bumps on the colon, malignant polyps which look more vascular and have more redness, cancerous cells, advanced cancer cells, and Crohn’s disease,” KSL.com said.

Collin the colon is on loan to Intermountain Health from medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific and will be traveling to Spanish Fork, Provo, and Ogden, among other locations in Utah, as well as Burley and Meridian, Idaho, in the coming days.

Collin the colon’s participation in the tour has created some serious buzz in the Colin/Collin community:

• Colin Powell (four-star general and Secretary of State): “Back then, the second-most important topic among the Joint Chiefs of Staff was colon cancer screening. And the Navy guy – I can’t remember his name – was a huge fan of giant inflatable organs.”
• Colin Jost (comedian and Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” cohost): “He’s funnier than Tucker Carlson and Pete Davidson combined.”

Do android therapists dream of electric employees?

Robots. It can be tough to remember that, when they’re not dooming humanity to apocalypse or just telling you that you’re doomed, robots have real-world uses. There are actual robots in the world, and they can do things beyond bend girders, sing about science, or run the navy.

University of Cambridge

Look, we’ll stop with the pop-culture references when pop culture runs out of robots to reference. It may take a while.

Robots are indelibly rooted in the public consciousness, and that plays into our expectations when we encounter a real-life robot. This leads us into a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, who developed a robot-led mental well-being program that a tech company utilized for 4 weeks. Why choose a robot? Well, why spring for a qualified therapist who requires a salary when you could simply get a robot to do the job for free? Get with the capitalist agenda here. Surely it won’t backfire.

The 26 people enrolled in the study received coaching from one of two robots, both programmed identically to act like mental health coaches, based on interviews with human therapists. Both acted identically and had identical expressions. The only difference between the two was their appearance. QTRobot was nearly a meter tall and looked like a human child; Misty II was much smaller and looked like a toy.

People who received coaching from Misty II were better able to connect and had a better experience than those who received coaching from QTRobot. According to those in the QTRobot group, their expectations didn’t match reality. The robots are good coaches, but they don’t act human. This wasn’t a problem for Misty II, since it doesn’t look human, but for QTRobot, the participants were expecting “to hell with our orders,” but received “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.” When you’ve been programmed to think of robots as metal humans, it can be off-putting to see them act as, well, robots.

That said, all participants found the exercises helpful and were open to receiving more robot-led therapy in the future. And while we’re sure the technology will advance to make robot therapists more empathetic and more human, hopefully scientists won’t go too far. We don’t need depressed robots.

Birthing experience is all in the mindset

Alexa, play Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46 - I. Morning Mood.

Birth.

Giving birth is a common experience for many, if not most, female mammals, but wanting it to be a pleasurable one seems distinctly human. There are many methods and practices that may make giving birth an easier and enjoyable experience for the mother, but a new study suggests that the key could be in her mind.

joruba/Thinkstock

The mindset of the expectant mother during pregnancy, it seems, has some effect on how smooth or intervention-filled delivery is. If the mothers saw their experience as a natural process, they were less likely to need pain medication or a C-section, but mothers who viewed the experience as more of a “medical procedure” were more likely to require more medical supervision and intervention, according to investigators from the University of Bonn (Germany).

Now, the researchers wanted to be super clear in saying that there’s no right or wrong mindset to have. They just focused on the outcomes of those mindsets and whether they actually do have some effect on occurrences.

Apparently, yes.

“Mindsets can be understood as a kind of mental lense that guide our perception of the world around us and can influence our behavior,” Dr. Lisa Hoffmann said in a statement from the university. “The study highlights the importance of psychological factors in childbirth.”

The researchers surveyed 300 women with an online tool before and after delivery and found the effects of the natural process mindset lingered even after giving birth. They had lower rates of depression and posttraumatic stress, which may have a snowballing effect on mother-child bonding after childbirth.

Preparation for the big day, then, should be about more than gathering diapers and shopping for car seats. Women should prepare their minds as well. If it’s going to make giving birth better, why not?

Becoming a parent is going to create a psychological shift, no matter how you slice it.

Giant inflatable colon reported in Utah

Do not be alarmed! Yes, there is a giant inflatable colon currently at large in the Beehive State, but it will not harm you. The giant inflatable colon is in Utah as part of Intermountain Health’s “Let’s get to the bottom of colon cancer tour” and he only wants to help you.

Hiroshi Watanabe/Getty Images

The giant inflatable colon, whose name happens to be Collin, is 12 feet long and weighs 113 pounds. March is Colon Cancer Awareness Month, so Collin is traveling around Utah and Idaho to raise awareness about colon cancer and the various screening options. He is not going to change local weather patterns, eat small children, or take over local governments and raise your taxes.

Instead, Collin is planning to display “portions of a healthy colon, polyps or bumps on the colon, malignant polyps which look more vascular and have more redness, cancerous cells, advanced cancer cells, and Crohn’s disease,” KSL.com said.

Collin the colon is on loan to Intermountain Health from medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific and will be traveling to Spanish Fork, Provo, and Ogden, among other locations in Utah, as well as Burley and Meridian, Idaho, in the coming days.

Collin the colon’s participation in the tour has created some serious buzz in the Colin/Collin community:

• Colin Powell (four-star general and Secretary of State): “Back then, the second-most important topic among the Joint Chiefs of Staff was colon cancer screening. And the Navy guy – I can’t remember his name – was a huge fan of giant inflatable organs.”
• Colin Jost (comedian and Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” cohost): “He’s funnier than Tucker Carlson and Pete Davidson combined.”

Do android therapists dream of electric employees?

Robots. It can be tough to remember that, when they’re not dooming humanity to apocalypse or just telling you that you’re doomed, robots have real-world uses. There are actual robots in the world, and they can do things beyond bend girders, sing about science, or run the navy.

University of Cambridge

Look, we’ll stop with the pop-culture references when pop culture runs out of robots to reference. It may take a while.

Robots are indelibly rooted in the public consciousness, and that plays into our expectations when we encounter a real-life robot. This leads us into a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, who developed a robot-led mental well-being program that a tech company utilized for 4 weeks. Why choose a robot? Well, why spring for a qualified therapist who requires a salary when you could simply get a robot to do the job for free? Get with the capitalist agenda here. Surely it won’t backfire.

The 26 people enrolled in the study received coaching from one of two robots, both programmed identically to act like mental health coaches, based on interviews with human therapists. Both acted identically and had identical expressions. The only difference between the two was their appearance. QTRobot was nearly a meter tall and looked like a human child; Misty II was much smaller and looked like a toy.

People who received coaching from Misty II were better able to connect and had a better experience than those who received coaching from QTRobot. According to those in the QTRobot group, their expectations didn’t match reality. The robots are good coaches, but they don’t act human. This wasn’t a problem for Misty II, since it doesn’t look human, but for QTRobot, the participants were expecting “to hell with our orders,” but received “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.” When you’ve been programmed to think of robots as metal humans, it can be off-putting to see them act as, well, robots.

That said, all participants found the exercises helpful and were open to receiving more robot-led therapy in the future. And while we’re sure the technology will advance to make robot therapists more empathetic and more human, hopefully scientists won’t go too far. We don’t need depressed robots.

Birthing experience is all in the mindset

Alexa, play Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46 - I. Morning Mood.

Birth.

Giving birth is a common experience for many, if not most, female mammals, but wanting it to be a pleasurable one seems distinctly human. There are many methods and practices that may make giving birth an easier and enjoyable experience for the mother, but a new study suggests that the key could be in her mind.

joruba/Thinkstock

The mindset of the expectant mother during pregnancy, it seems, has some effect on how smooth or intervention-filled delivery is. If the mothers saw their experience as a natural process, they were less likely to need pain medication or a C-section, but mothers who viewed the experience as more of a “medical procedure” were more likely to require more medical supervision and intervention, according to investigators from the University of Bonn (Germany).

Now, the researchers wanted to be super clear in saying that there’s no right or wrong mindset to have. They just focused on the outcomes of those mindsets and whether they actually do have some effect on occurrences.

Apparently, yes.

“Mindsets can be understood as a kind of mental lense that guide our perception of the world around us and can influence our behavior,” Dr. Lisa Hoffmann said in a statement from the university. “The study highlights the importance of psychological factors in childbirth.”

The researchers surveyed 300 women with an online tool before and after delivery and found the effects of the natural process mindset lingered even after giving birth. They had lower rates of depression and posttraumatic stress, which may have a snowballing effect on mother-child bonding after childbirth.

Preparation for the big day, then, should be about more than gathering diapers and shopping for car seats. Women should prepare their minds as well. If it’s going to make giving birth better, why not?

Becoming a parent is going to create a psychological shift, no matter how you slice it.

Giant inflatable colon reported in Utah

Do not be alarmed! Yes, there is a giant inflatable colon currently at large in the Beehive State, but it will not harm you. The giant inflatable colon is in Utah as part of Intermountain Health’s “Let’s get to the bottom of colon cancer tour” and he only wants to help you.

Hiroshi Watanabe/Getty Images

The giant inflatable colon, whose name happens to be Collin, is 12 feet long and weighs 113 pounds. March is Colon Cancer Awareness Month, so Collin is traveling around Utah and Idaho to raise awareness about colon cancer and the various screening options. He is not going to change local weather patterns, eat small children, or take over local governments and raise your taxes.

Instead, Collin is planning to display “portions of a healthy colon, polyps or bumps on the colon, malignant polyps which look more vascular and have more redness, cancerous cells, advanced cancer cells, and Crohn’s disease,” KSL.com said.

Collin the colon is on loan to Intermountain Health from medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific and will be traveling to Spanish Fork, Provo, and Ogden, among other locations in Utah, as well as Burley and Meridian, Idaho, in the coming days.

Collin the colon’s participation in the tour has created some serious buzz in the Colin/Collin community:

• Colin Powell (four-star general and Secretary of State): “Back then, the second-most important topic among the Joint Chiefs of Staff was colon cancer screening. And the Navy guy – I can’t remember his name – was a huge fan of giant inflatable organs.”
• Colin Jost (comedian and Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” cohost): “He’s funnier than Tucker Carlson and Pete Davidson combined.”

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is rapidly increasing among younger individuals, and the disease is also being diagnosed at more advanced stages in all ages, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

Diagnoses in people younger than 55 years doubled from 11% (1 in 10) in 1995 to 20% (1 in 5) in 2019.

In addition, more advanced disease is being diagnosed; the proportion of individuals of all ages presenting with advanced-stage CRC increased from 52% in the mid-2000s to 60% in 2019.

“We know rates are increasing in young people, but it’s alarming to see how rapidly the whole patient population is shifting younger, despite shrinking numbers in the overall population,” said Rebecca Siegel, MPH, senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the report.

“The trend toward more advanced disease in people of all ages is also surprising and should motivate everyone 45 and older to get screened,” she added.

The report was published online in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death of both men and women in the United States. It is estimated that there will be 153,020 new cases of CRC in the U.S. in 2023, including 106,970 tumors in the colon and 46,050 in the rectum.

Overall, in 2023, an estimated 153,020 people will be diagnosed with CRC in the U.S., and of those, 52,550 people will die from the disease.

The incidence of CRC rapidly decreased during the 2000s among people aged 50 and older, largely because of an increase in cancer screening with colonoscopy. But progress slowed during the past decade, and now the trends toward declining incidence is largely confined to those aged 65 and older.

The authors point out that more than half of all cases and deaths are associated with modifiable risk factors, including smoking, an unhealthy diet, high alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and excess body weight. A large proportion of CRC incidence and mortality is preventable through recommended screening, surveillance, and high-quality treatment.

But it remains unclear why rates are rising among younger adults and why there is a trend toward the disase being initially diagnosed at more advanced stages.

“We have to address why the rates in young adults continue to trend in the wrong direction,” said Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, senior vice president of surveillance and health equity science at the American Cancer Society and senior author of the study. “We need to invest more in research to uncover the causes of the rising trends and to discover new treatment for advanced-stage diseases to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with this disease in this young population, who are raising families and supporting other family members.”

For their report, Ms. Siegel and colleagues used incidence data from 1995 to 2019 from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data came from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute and the National Program of Cancer Registries of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as provided by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. National mortality data through 2020 were provided by the National Center for Health Statistics.

The authors note that while overall, deaths from CRC are continuing to fall, “this progress is tempered by a rapidly changing landscape of disease that foreshadows less favorable trends ahead.”

The incidence rates have increased by 2% per year among people younger than 50 years as well as among those aged 50-54 years while, for the past decade, the rates have declined among those aged 65 and older. Incidence rates have stabilized among persons aged 50-64 years.

Although the majority of diagnoses continue to occur among people aged 65 years and older, 19,550 cases (13%) will occur in those younger than age 50 years, and one-third will be diagnosed in those aged 50-64 years.

Other key findings include the following.

• Declines in incidence and mortality have slowed, from 3% to 4% per year during the 2000s to 1% per year for incidence and 2% per year for mortality during the past decade.
• The incidence rate was 33% higher among men than women from 2015 to 2019, which may reflect differences in risk factors, such as excess body weight, processed meat consumption, and a history of smoking.
• The percentage of patients who present with advanced-stage disease has increased from a low of 52% in the mid-2000s to 60% in 2019 despite an increase in the use of screening.
• Death rates from CRC have risen since around 2005 by 1% annually among those younger than 50 years and by 0.6% in people aged 50-54.
• The report also identified racial/ethnic differences in incidence and mortality: Incidence was highest among Alaska Natives (88.5 per 100,000), American Indians (46.0 per 100,000), and Black persons, compared with White persons (41.7 per 100,000 vs. 35.7 per 100,000). Mortality followed a similar pattern; the highest rates were observed among Alaska Natives (50.5 per 100,000), American Indians (17.5 per 100,000), and Black persons, compared with White persons (17.6 per 100,000 vs. 13.1 per 100,000).
• There was also a shift to left-sided tumors, despite greater efficacy of screening for preventing left-sided lesions. The proportion of CRCs occurring in the rectum has steadily risen from 27% in 1995 to 31% in 2019.

“These highly concerning data illustrate the urgent need to invest in targeted cancer research studies dedicated to understanding and preventing early-onset colorectal cancer,” said Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, and CEO of the American Cancer Society. “The shift to diagnosis of more advanced disease also underscores the importance of screening and early detection, which saves lives.”

The study was supported by the American Cancer Society.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is rapidly increasing among younger individuals, and the disease is also being diagnosed at more advanced stages in all ages, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

Diagnoses in people younger than 55 years doubled from 11% (1 in 10) in 1995 to 20% (1 in 5) in 2019.

In addition, more advanced disease is being diagnosed; the proportion of individuals of all ages presenting with advanced-stage CRC increased from 52% in the mid-2000s to 60% in 2019.

“We know rates are increasing in young people, but it’s alarming to see how rapidly the whole patient population is shifting younger, despite shrinking numbers in the overall population,” said Rebecca Siegel, MPH, senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the report.

“The trend toward more advanced disease in people of all ages is also surprising and should motivate everyone 45 and older to get screened,” she added.

The report was published online in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death of both men and women in the United States. It is estimated that there will be 153,020 new cases of CRC in the U.S. in 2023, including 106,970 tumors in the colon and 46,050 in the rectum.

Overall, in 2023, an estimated 153,020 people will be diagnosed with CRC in the U.S., and of those, 52,550 people will die from the disease.

The incidence of CRC rapidly decreased during the 2000s among people aged 50 and older, largely because of an increase in cancer screening with colonoscopy. But progress slowed during the past decade, and now the trends toward declining incidence is largely confined to those aged 65 and older.

The authors point out that more than half of all cases and deaths are associated with modifiable risk factors, including smoking, an unhealthy diet, high alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and excess body weight. A large proportion of CRC incidence and mortality is preventable through recommended screening, surveillance, and high-quality treatment.

But it remains unclear why rates are rising among younger adults and why there is a trend toward the disase being initially diagnosed at more advanced stages.

“We have to address why the rates in young adults continue to trend in the wrong direction,” said Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, senior vice president of surveillance and health equity science at the American Cancer Society and senior author of the study. “We need to invest more in research to uncover the causes of the rising trends and to discover new treatment for advanced-stage diseases to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with this disease in this young population, who are raising families and supporting other family members.”

For their report, Ms. Siegel and colleagues used incidence data from 1995 to 2019 from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data came from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute and the National Program of Cancer Registries of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as provided by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. National mortality data through 2020 were provided by the National Center for Health Statistics.

The authors note that while overall, deaths from CRC are continuing to fall, “this progress is tempered by a rapidly changing landscape of disease that foreshadows less favorable trends ahead.”

The incidence rates have increased by 2% per year among people younger than 50 years as well as among those aged 50-54 years while, for the past decade, the rates have declined among those aged 65 and older. Incidence rates have stabilized among persons aged 50-64 years.

Although the majority of diagnoses continue to occur among people aged 65 years and older, 19,550 cases (13%) will occur in those younger than age 50 years, and one-third will be diagnosed in those aged 50-64 years.

Other key findings include the following.

• Declines in incidence and mortality have slowed, from 3% to 4% per year during the 2000s to 1% per year for incidence and 2% per year for mortality during the past decade.
• The incidence rate was 33% higher among men than women from 2015 to 2019, which may reflect differences in risk factors, such as excess body weight, processed meat consumption, and a history of smoking.
• The percentage of patients who present with advanced-stage disease has increased from a low of 52% in the mid-2000s to 60% in 2019 despite an increase in the use of screening.
• Death rates from CRC have risen since around 2005 by 1% annually among those younger than 50 years and by 0.6% in people aged 50-54.
• The report also identified racial/ethnic differences in incidence and mortality: Incidence was highest among Alaska Natives (88.5 per 100,000), American Indians (46.0 per 100,000), and Black persons, compared with White persons (41.7 per 100,000 vs. 35.7 per 100,000). Mortality followed a similar pattern; the highest rates were observed among Alaska Natives (50.5 per 100,000), American Indians (17.5 per 100,000), and Black persons, compared with White persons (17.6 per 100,000 vs. 13.1 per 100,000).
• There was also a shift to left-sided tumors, despite greater efficacy of screening for preventing left-sided lesions. The proportion of CRCs occurring in the rectum has steadily risen from 27% in 1995 to 31% in 2019.

“These highly concerning data illustrate the urgent need to invest in targeted cancer research studies dedicated to understanding and preventing early-onset colorectal cancer,” said Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, and CEO of the American Cancer Society. “The shift to diagnosis of more advanced disease also underscores the importance of screening and early detection, which saves lives.”

The study was supported by the American Cancer Society.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is rapidly increasing among younger individuals, and the disease is also being diagnosed at more advanced stages in all ages, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

Diagnoses in people younger than 55 years doubled from 11% (1 in 10) in 1995 to 20% (1 in 5) in 2019.

In addition, more advanced disease is being diagnosed; the proportion of individuals of all ages presenting with advanced-stage CRC increased from 52% in the mid-2000s to 60% in 2019.

“We know rates are increasing in young people, but it’s alarming to see how rapidly the whole patient population is shifting younger, despite shrinking numbers in the overall population,” said Rebecca Siegel, MPH, senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the report.

“The trend toward more advanced disease in people of all ages is also surprising and should motivate everyone 45 and older to get screened,” she added.

The report was published online in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death of both men and women in the United States. It is estimated that there will be 153,020 new cases of CRC in the U.S. in 2023, including 106,970 tumors in the colon and 46,050 in the rectum.

Overall, in 2023, an estimated 153,020 people will be diagnosed with CRC in the U.S., and of those, 52,550 people will die from the disease.

The incidence of CRC rapidly decreased during the 2000s among people aged 50 and older, largely because of an increase in cancer screening with colonoscopy. But progress slowed during the past decade, and now the trends toward declining incidence is largely confined to those aged 65 and older.

The authors point out that more than half of all cases and deaths are associated with modifiable risk factors, including smoking, an unhealthy diet, high alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and excess body weight. A large proportion of CRC incidence and mortality is preventable through recommended screening, surveillance, and high-quality treatment.

But it remains unclear why rates are rising among younger adults and why there is a trend toward the disase being initially diagnosed at more advanced stages.

“We have to address why the rates in young adults continue to trend in the wrong direction,” said Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, senior vice president of surveillance and health equity science at the American Cancer Society and senior author of the study. “We need to invest more in research to uncover the causes of the rising trends and to discover new treatment for advanced-stage diseases to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with this disease in this young population, who are raising families and supporting other family members.”

For their report, Ms. Siegel and colleagues used incidence data from 1995 to 2019 from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data came from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute and the National Program of Cancer Registries of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as provided by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. National mortality data through 2020 were provided by the National Center for Health Statistics.

The authors note that while overall, deaths from CRC are continuing to fall, “this progress is tempered by a rapidly changing landscape of disease that foreshadows less favorable trends ahead.”

The incidence rates have increased by 2% per year among people younger than 50 years as well as among those aged 50-54 years while, for the past decade, the rates have declined among those aged 65 and older. Incidence rates have stabilized among persons aged 50-64 years.

Although the majority of diagnoses continue to occur among people aged 65 years and older, 19,550 cases (13%) will occur in those younger than age 50 years, and one-third will be diagnosed in those aged 50-64 years.

Other key findings include the following.

• Declines in incidence and mortality have slowed, from 3% to 4% per year during the 2000s to 1% per year for incidence and 2% per year for mortality during the past decade.
• The incidence rate was 33% higher among men than women from 2015 to 2019, which may reflect differences in risk factors, such as excess body weight, processed meat consumption, and a history of smoking.
• The percentage of patients who present with advanced-stage disease has increased from a low of 52% in the mid-2000s to 60% in 2019 despite an increase in the use of screening.
• Death rates from CRC have risen since around 2005 by 1% annually among those younger than 50 years and by 0.6% in people aged 50-54.
• The report also identified racial/ethnic differences in incidence and mortality: Incidence was highest among Alaska Natives (88.5 per 100,000), American Indians (46.0 per 100,000), and Black persons, compared with White persons (41.7 per 100,000 vs. 35.7 per 100,000). Mortality followed a similar pattern; the highest rates were observed among Alaska Natives (50.5 per 100,000), American Indians (17.5 per 100,000), and Black persons, compared with White persons (17.6 per 100,000 vs. 13.1 per 100,000).
• There was also a shift to left-sided tumors, despite greater efficacy of screening for preventing left-sided lesions. The proportion of CRCs occurring in the rectum has steadily risen from 27% in 1995 to 31% in 2019.

“These highly concerning data illustrate the urgent need to invest in targeted cancer research studies dedicated to understanding and preventing early-onset colorectal cancer,” said Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, and CEO of the American Cancer Society. “The shift to diagnosis of more advanced disease also underscores the importance of screening and early detection, which saves lives.”

The study was supported by the American Cancer Society.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of the epidermal growth-factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib led to about a 30% reduction in duodenal polyp burden after 6 months of once-weekly treatment for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in a phase 2 clinical trial.

“If existing data are confirmed and extended through future research, this strategy has the potential for substantial impact on clinical practice by decreasing, delaying, or augmenting endoscopic and surgical interventions as the mainstay for duodenal cancer prevention in this high-risk patient population,” the study team says.

FAP is a rare genetic condition that markedly raises the risk for colorectal polyps and cancer.

“The biological pathway that leads to the development of polyps and colon cancer in patients with FAP is the same biological pathway as patients in the general population,” study investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in a news release.

“Our trial looked at opportunities to use chemoprevention agents in patients with FAP to inhibit the development of precancerous polyps in the small bowel and colorectum,” Dr. Samadder explains.

In an earlier study, the researchers found that the combination of the COX-2 inhibitor sulindac (150 mg twice daily) and erlotinib (75 mg daily) reduced duodenal polyp burden.

However, the dual-drug strategy was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate, which may limit use of the combination for chemoprevention, as reported previously.

This phase 2 study tested whether erlotinib’s AE profile would be improved with a once-weekly dosing schedule while still reducing polyp burden.

The study was first published online in the journal Gut.

In the single-arm, multicenter study, 46 adults with FAP (mean age, 44 years; 48% women) self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth one time per week for 6 months. All but four participants completed the 6-month study.

After 6 months of weekly erlotinib, duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced, with a mean percent reduction of 29.6% (95% confidence interval: –39.6% to –19.7%; P < .0001).

The benefit was observed in patients with either Spigelman 2 or Spigelman 3 duodenal polyp burden.

“Though only 12% of patients noted a decrease in Spigelman stage from 3 to 2 associated with therapy, the majority of patients (86%) had stable disease while on treatment,” the study team reports.

GI polyp number (a secondary outcome) was also decreased after 6 months of treatment with erlotinib (median decrease of 30.8%; P = .0256).

While once-weekly erlotinib was “generally” well tolerated, grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 72% of patients; two suffered grade 3 toxicity. Nonetheless, the AE rate was significantly more than the expected null hypothesis rate of 50%, the study team states.

Four patients withdrew from the study because of drug-induced AEs, which included grade 3 rash acneiform, grade 2 infections (hand, foot, and mouth disease), grade 1 fatigue, and grade 1 rash acneiform. No grade 4 AEs were reported.

The most common AE was an erlotinib-induced acneiform-like rash, which occurred in 56.5% of study patients. The rash was managed with topical cortisone and/or clindamycin. Additional erlotinib-induced AEs included oral mucositis (6.5%), diarrhea (50%), and nausea (26.1%).

Summing up, Dr. Samadder and colleagues note that FAP “portends a heritable, systemic predisposition to cancer, and the ultimate goal of cancer preventive intervention is to interrupt the development of neoplasia, need for surgery, and ultimately death from cancer, with an acceptable AE profile.”

The findings from this phase 2 trial support further study of erlotinib as “an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated gastrointestinal polyposis,” they conclude.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Samadder is a consultant for Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of the epidermal growth-factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib led to about a 30% reduction in duodenal polyp burden after 6 months of once-weekly treatment for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in a phase 2 clinical trial.

“If existing data are confirmed and extended through future research, this strategy has the potential for substantial impact on clinical practice by decreasing, delaying, or augmenting endoscopic and surgical interventions as the mainstay for duodenal cancer prevention in this high-risk patient population,” the study team says.

FAP is a rare genetic condition that markedly raises the risk for colorectal polyps and cancer.

“The biological pathway that leads to the development of polyps and colon cancer in patients with FAP is the same biological pathway as patients in the general population,” study investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in a news release.

“Our trial looked at opportunities to use chemoprevention agents in patients with FAP to inhibit the development of precancerous polyps in the small bowel and colorectum,” Dr. Samadder explains.

In an earlier study, the researchers found that the combination of the COX-2 inhibitor sulindac (150 mg twice daily) and erlotinib (75 mg daily) reduced duodenal polyp burden.

However, the dual-drug strategy was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate, which may limit use of the combination for chemoprevention, as reported previously.

This phase 2 study tested whether erlotinib’s AE profile would be improved with a once-weekly dosing schedule while still reducing polyp burden.

The study was first published online in the journal Gut.

In the single-arm, multicenter study, 46 adults with FAP (mean age, 44 years; 48% women) self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth one time per week for 6 months. All but four participants completed the 6-month study.

After 6 months of weekly erlotinib, duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced, with a mean percent reduction of 29.6% (95% confidence interval: –39.6% to –19.7%; P < .0001).

The benefit was observed in patients with either Spigelman 2 or Spigelman 3 duodenal polyp burden.

“Though only 12% of patients noted a decrease in Spigelman stage from 3 to 2 associated with therapy, the majority of patients (86%) had stable disease while on treatment,” the study team reports.

GI polyp number (a secondary outcome) was also decreased after 6 months of treatment with erlotinib (median decrease of 30.8%; P = .0256).

While once-weekly erlotinib was “generally” well tolerated, grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 72% of patients; two suffered grade 3 toxicity. Nonetheless, the AE rate was significantly more than the expected null hypothesis rate of 50%, the study team states.

Four patients withdrew from the study because of drug-induced AEs, which included grade 3 rash acneiform, grade 2 infections (hand, foot, and mouth disease), grade 1 fatigue, and grade 1 rash acneiform. No grade 4 AEs were reported.

The most common AE was an erlotinib-induced acneiform-like rash, which occurred in 56.5% of study patients. The rash was managed with topical cortisone and/or clindamycin. Additional erlotinib-induced AEs included oral mucositis (6.5%), diarrhea (50%), and nausea (26.1%).

Summing up, Dr. Samadder and colleagues note that FAP “portends a heritable, systemic predisposition to cancer, and the ultimate goal of cancer preventive intervention is to interrupt the development of neoplasia, need for surgery, and ultimately death from cancer, with an acceptable AE profile.”

The findings from this phase 2 trial support further study of erlotinib as “an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated gastrointestinal polyposis,” they conclude.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Samadder is a consultant for Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of the epidermal growth-factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib led to about a 30% reduction in duodenal polyp burden after 6 months of once-weekly treatment for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in a phase 2 clinical trial.

“If existing data are confirmed and extended through future research, this strategy has the potential for substantial impact on clinical practice by decreasing, delaying, or augmenting endoscopic and surgical interventions as the mainstay for duodenal cancer prevention in this high-risk patient population,” the study team says.

FAP is a rare genetic condition that markedly raises the risk for colorectal polyps and cancer.

“The biological pathway that leads to the development of polyps and colon cancer in patients with FAP is the same biological pathway as patients in the general population,” study investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in a news release.

“Our trial looked at opportunities to use chemoprevention agents in patients with FAP to inhibit the development of precancerous polyps in the small bowel and colorectum,” Dr. Samadder explains.

In an earlier study, the researchers found that the combination of the COX-2 inhibitor sulindac (150 mg twice daily) and erlotinib (75 mg daily) reduced duodenal polyp burden.

However, the dual-drug strategy was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate, which may limit use of the combination for chemoprevention, as reported previously.

This phase 2 study tested whether erlotinib’s AE profile would be improved with a once-weekly dosing schedule while still reducing polyp burden.

The study was first published online in the journal Gut.

In the single-arm, multicenter study, 46 adults with FAP (mean age, 44 years; 48% women) self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth one time per week for 6 months. All but four participants completed the 6-month study.

After 6 months of weekly erlotinib, duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced, with a mean percent reduction of 29.6% (95% confidence interval: –39.6% to –19.7%; P < .0001).

The benefit was observed in patients with either Spigelman 2 or Spigelman 3 duodenal polyp burden.

“Though only 12% of patients noted a decrease in Spigelman stage from 3 to 2 associated with therapy, the majority of patients (86%) had stable disease while on treatment,” the study team reports.

GI polyp number (a secondary outcome) was also decreased after 6 months of treatment with erlotinib (median decrease of 30.8%; P = .0256).

While once-weekly erlotinib was “generally” well tolerated, grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 72% of patients; two suffered grade 3 toxicity. Nonetheless, the AE rate was significantly more than the expected null hypothesis rate of 50%, the study team states.

Four patients withdrew from the study because of drug-induced AEs, which included grade 3 rash acneiform, grade 2 infections (hand, foot, and mouth disease), grade 1 fatigue, and grade 1 rash acneiform. No grade 4 AEs were reported.

The most common AE was an erlotinib-induced acneiform-like rash, which occurred in 56.5% of study patients. The rash was managed with topical cortisone and/or clindamycin. Additional erlotinib-induced AEs included oral mucositis (6.5%), diarrhea (50%), and nausea (26.1%).

Summing up, Dr. Samadder and colleagues note that FAP “portends a heritable, systemic predisposition to cancer, and the ultimate goal of cancer preventive intervention is to interrupt the development of neoplasia, need for surgery, and ultimately death from cancer, with an acceptable AE profile.”

The findings from this phase 2 trial support further study of erlotinib as “an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated gastrointestinal polyposis,” they conclude.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Samadder is a consultant for Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.