Skip to main content
Log in

Hereditary colorectal cancer: Screening and management

  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects approximately 6% of the US population, with equal distribution between men and women. It is hereditary in a high proportion of cases and is one of the most preventable cancers. Detection and removal of its precursor lesions, the adenomatous polyps, is the foundation of preventive strategies. However, once CRC is diagnosed, surgical resection is the only cure. The likelihood of cure is higher when CRC is diagnosed at an early stage. Dietary and lifestyle modifications have little, if any, impact on CRC. Endoscopy with polypectomy prevents cancer deaths. The most important issues are screening and surveillance by any of the recommended modalities. Remaining concerns include the choice of screening tests, optimal testing intervals, and cost effectiveness. Patients may be stratified by personal and family risk and by the specific strategies used. Newer developments in genetic testing and imaging, including virtual colonoscopy, hold promise for future prevention. Chemoprevention with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may have a role in highrisk populations. Colonoscopy is the most effective method of CRC prevention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Burt RW: Colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2000, 119:837–853. An excellent review of the different screening strategies in average-risk patients, high-risk patients, and patients with inherited syndromes.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chung DC: The genetic basis of CRC: insights into critical pathways of tumorigenesis. Gastroenterology 2000, 119:854–865. An excellent summary of the different genetic pathways of CRC.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Helm JF, Russo MW, Biddle AK, et al.: Effectiveness and economic impact of screening for CRC by mass fecal occult blood testing. Am J Gastroenterol 2000, 95:3250–3258. The authors assess the effectiveness of screening, projecting published outcomes from each of the three large randomized, controlled trials of FOBT to the US population, as if each clinical trial had been done in the population as a whole. They demonstrate that mass fecal occult blood testing is cost effective, although not inexpensive.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Burke CA, Tadikonda L, Machicao V: Fecal occult blood testing for CRC screening: use the finger. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:3175–3177.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Greenber PD, Cello JP, Rockey DC: Relationship of low-dose aspirin to GI injury and occult bleeding: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 50:618–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Colorectal screening. In Practice Guidelines in Oncology, vol 1; 2001. http://www.nccn.org.

  7. Pignone M, Campbell MK, Carr C, et al.: Meta-analysis of dietary restriction during fecal occult blood testing. Eff Clin Pract 2001, 4:150–156.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al.: Reducing mortality from CRC by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 1993, 328:1365–1371. The first study including a large number of patients demonstrating that annual FOBT with rehydration of the samples decreased the 13-year cumulative mortality from CRC.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ransohoff DF, Lang CA: Screening for CRC with fecal occult blood test; a background paper. Ann Intern Med 1997, 126:811–822.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Church TR, Ederer F, Mandel JS: Fecal occult blood screening in the Minnesota study: sensitivity of the screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997, 89:1440–1448.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardcastle JD, Chamberalin JO, Robinson MHE, et al.: Randomized controlled trial of fecal occult blood screening for CRC. Lancet 1996, 348:1472–1477.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al.: Randomized study of screening for CRC with fecal occult blood test. Lancet 1996, 348:1467–1471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al.: The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of CRC. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:1603–1607.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F, et al.: CRC mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999, 91:434–437.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Winawer SJ, Flehinger BH, Schottenfeld D, et al.: Screening for CRC with fecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993, 85:1311–1318. [cmThis was the first study to evaluate the effectiveness in comprehensive medical examinations of the FOBT in conjunction with sigmoidoscopy, rather than sigmoidoscopy alone, in screening for CRC.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial Investigators, Atkin WS: Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent CRC: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002, 359:1291–1300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Newcomb PA, Norfleet RG, Storer BE, et al.: Screening sigmoidoscopy and CRC mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992, 84:1572–1575.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Selby J, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, et al.: A casecontrol study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from CRC. N Engl J Med 1992, 326:653–657. The first study to demonstrate that screening by sigmoidoscopy can reduce mortality from cancer of the rectum and distal colon.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Muller AD, Sonnenberg A: Prevention of CRC by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy: a case-control study of 32,702 veterans. Ann Intern Med 1995, 123:904–910.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG: One time screening for CRC with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon. N Engl J Med 2001, 345:555–560.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rex DK, Rahmani EY, Haseman JH, et al.: Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of CRC in clinical practice. Gastroenterology 1997, 112:117–123.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al.: CRC screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997, 112:594–642. The most comprehensive published guidelines for CRC screening, including economic considerations of the various strategies and suggestions to increase compliance with the recommendations.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Winawer SJ, Stewart ET, Zauber AG, et al.: A comparison of colonoscopy and double contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. N Engl J Med 2000, 324:1766–1772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Lieberman DA, et al.: CRC prevention 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 2000, 95:868–877. CRC screening guidelines of the American College of Gastroenterology.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. DiSario JA, Foutch PG, Mai HD, et al.: Prevalence and malignant potential of colorectal polyps in asymptomatic, average-risk men. Am J Gastroenterol 1991, 86:941–945.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond J, et al.: Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for CRC. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:162–169. The authors demonstrate, on the basis of a large study, that colonoscopic screening can detect advanced colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic adults. They also demonstrate that colonoscopy is superior to sigmoidoscopy because many of these neoplasms would not be detected with sigmoidoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, et al.: Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal finding. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:169–174.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vijan S, Hwang EW, Hofer TP, et al.: Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med 2001, 111:593–601.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Petersen GM, et al.: The use and interpretation of commercial APC gene testing for familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 1997, 336:823–827.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ramsey SD, Clarke L, Etzioni R, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of microsatellite instability screening as a method for detecting hereditary nonpolyposis CRC. Ann Intern Med 2001, 135:577–588.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for colorectal rancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137:129–131. The most recently developed CRC screening guidelines.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Smith RA, Mettlin CJ, Davis KJ, et al.: American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2000, 50:34–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Guidelines for CRC screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 51:777–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Johns LE, Houlston RS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial CRC risk. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:2992–3003. Complete and comprehensive meta-analysis of the different risks of CRC associated with a positive family history.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Burt RW: Polyposis syndromes. In Textbook of Gastroenterology, edn 4. Edited by Yamada T. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; in press.

  36. Peterson KA, DiSario JA: Secondary prevention: screening and surveillance of average- and high-risk individuals for CRC. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am, in press.

  37. Vasen HFA, Watson P, Mecklin JP, and the ICG-HNPCC: New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis CRC (HNPCC, Lynch Syndrome). Proposed by the International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999, 116:1453–1456. An important paper that reviews the addition of extracolonic findings to the HNPCC spectrum, creating the Amsterdam II criteria.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bergstrom A, Pisani P, Tenet V, et al.: Overweight as an avoidable cause of cancer in Europe. Int J Cancer 2001, 91:421–430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Slattery ML: Diet, lifestyle, and colon cancer. Semin Gastrointest Dis 2000, 11:142–146.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Janne PA, Mayer RJ: Chemoprevention of CRC. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:1960–1968.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Terry P, Giovannucci E, Michels KB, et al.: Fruit, vegetables, dietary fiber, and risk of CRC. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001, 93:525–533.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Colditz Ga, et al.: Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the Nurses’ Health Study. Ann Intern Med 1998, 129:517–524.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wu K, Willett WC, Fuchs CS, et al.: Calcium intake and risk of colon cancer in women and men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002, 94:437–446.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bardou M, Montembault S, Giraud V, et al.: Excessive alcohol consumption favors high risk polyp or CRC occurrence among patients with adenomas: a case control study. Gut 2002, 50:38–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Gwyn K, Sinicrope FA: Chemoprevention of CRC. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:13–21. An excellent review of the various strategies used for chemoprevention in CRC.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gann PH, Manson JE, Glynn RJ, et al.: Low-dose aspirin and incidence of colorectal tumors in a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993, 85:1220–1224.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Giovannucci E, Egan KM, Hunter DJ, et al.: Aspirin and the risk of CRC in women. N Engl J Med 1995, 333:609–614.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Giardiello FM, Yang VW, Hylind LM, et al.: Primary chemoprevention of familial adenomatous polyposis with sulindac. N Engl J Med 2002, 342:1054–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Matsuhashi N, Nakajima A, Fukushima Y, et al.: Effects of sulindac on sporadic colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 1997, 40:344–349.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Steinbach G, Lynch PM, Phillips RK, et al.: The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:1946–1952.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Vasen HF, van Duijvendijk P, Buskens E, et al.: Decision analysis in the surgical treatment of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: a Dutch-Scandinavian collaborative study including 659 patients. Gut 2001, 49:231–235.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Syngal S, Weeks JC, Schrag D, et al.: Benefits of colonoscopic surveillance and prophylactic colectomy in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis CRC mutations. Ann Intern Med 1998, 129:787–796.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Traverso G, Shuber A, Levin B, et al.: Detection of APC mutations in fecal DNA from patients with colorectal tumors. N Engl J Med 2002, 346:311–320.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Traverso G, Shuber A, Olsson L, et al.: Detection of proximal CRCs through analysis of faecal DNA. Lancet 2002, 359:403–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Ahlquist DA, Skoletsky JE, Boynton KA, et al.: CRC screening by detection of altered human DNA in stool: feasibility of a multi-target assay system. Gastroenterology 2000, 119:1219–1227.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Edwards JT, Wood CJ, Mendelson RM, et al.: Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: implications for screening programs. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:3009–3012.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC III, et al.: A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1496–1503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, et al.: Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001, 219:685–692.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Kay CL, Kulling D, Hawes RH, et al.: Virtual endoscopy: comparison with colonoscopy in the detection of space occupying lesions within the colon. Endoscopy 2000, 32:226–232.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Debatin JF: Fecal tagging: MR colonography without colonic cleansing. Abdom Imaging 2002, 27:410–417.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Appleyard M, Fireman Z, Glukhovsky A, et al.: A randomized trial comparing wireless capsule endoscopy with push enteroscopy for the detection of small-bowel lesions. Gastroenterology 2000, 119:1431–1438.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferrández, A., DiSario, J.A. Hereditary colorectal cancer: Screening and management. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 3, 459–474 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-002-0066-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-002-0066-4

Keywords

Navigation