This JAMA Patient Page describes Lynch syndrome, its risk factors and diagnosis, and its association with colorectal cancer and other specific cancers.
What Is the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline?
The Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is advice from the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology to help doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals provide care for breast cancer survivors who have finished cancer treatment. The cancer survivorship care guideline addresses issues that can occur in breast cancer survivors after their treatment.
Cancer screening tests are not perfect. Test results may suggest cancer when there is none (false-positive screen). They can also miss cancer even if it is present (false-negative screen). False-positive results can lead to emotional stress and more testing without improving health. Screening tests may also lead to overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is when screening tests find slow-growing forms of cancer that would never have caused symptoms or affected health if left undetected.
Abstract
Importance: Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.
Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.
Population: Asymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).
Evidence assessment: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.
Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).
Abstract
Objective
To calculate the prevalence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UT-UC), and lower urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (LT-UC) in patients with gross asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH) and symptomatic microhematuria (SMH).
Patients and Methods
This study was a population-based retrospective descriptive study. The study was approved by both the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board and the Olmsted Medical Center Institutional Review Board, and the population used was Olmsted County residents. A total of 4453 patients who presented with an initial episode of hematuria from January 1, 2000, through December 30, 2010, were included. Of the 4453 patients (median age, 58 years; interquartile range, 44.6-73.3 years), 1487 (33.4%) had gross hematuria, 2305 (51.8%) had AMH, and 661 (14.8%) had SMH.
Results
In the 1487 patients with gross hematuria, the prevalence of RCC, UT-UC, and LT-UC was 1.3%, 0.8%, and 9.0%, respectively. In the 2305 patients with AMH, the prevalence of RCC, UT-UC, and LT-UC was 0.2%, 0.3%, and 1.6%, respectively. In the 661 patients with SMH, the prevalence of RCC, UT-UC, and LT-UC was 0.6%, 0.2%, and 0.3%, respectively. Age was the most relevant risk factor for any hematuria type.
Conclusion
This unique cohort study reported that the prevalence of RCC or UC in patients with AMH and SMH was low, especially in the young cohort, and a large number of intense work-ups, such as cystoscopy and computed tomography urography, currently conducted could be omitted if stratified by hematuria type and age.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To investigate whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with lower mortality in adults.
DESIGN:
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES:
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from their inception to 26 December 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:
Randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin D supplementation with a placebo or no treatment for mortality were included. Independent data extraction was conducted and study quality assessed. A meta-analysis was carried out by using fixed effects and random effects models to calculate risk ratio of death in the group receiving vitamin D supplementation and the control group.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
All cause mortality.
RESULTS:
52 trials with a total of 75 454 participants were identified. Vitamin D supplementation was not associated with all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.02, I2=0%), cardiovascular mortality (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08, 0%), or non-cancer, non-cardiovascular mortality (1.05, 0.93 to 1.18, 0%). Vitamin D supplementation statistically significantly reduced the risk of cancer death (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95, 0%). In subgroup analyses, all cause mortality was significantly lower in trials with vitamin D3 supplementation than in trials with vitamin D2 supplementation (P for interaction=0.04); neither vitamin D3 nor vitamin D2 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all cause mortality.
CONCLUSIONS:
Vitamin D supplementation alone was not associated with all cause mortality in adults compared with placebo or no treatment. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of cancer death by 16%. Additional large clinical studies are needed to determine whether vitamin D3 supplementation is associated with lower all cause mortality.
STUDY REGISTRATION:
PROSPERO registration number CRD42018117823.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND:
A one-dose-fits-all approach to use of aspirin has yielded only modest benefits in long-term prevention of cardiovascular events, possibly due to underdosing in patients of large body size and excess dosing in patients of small body size, which might also affect other outcomes.
METHODS:
Using individual patient data, we analysed the modifying effects of bodyweight (10 kg bands) and height (10 cm bands) on the effects of low doses (≤100 mg) and higher doses (300-325 mg or ≥500 mg) of aspirin in randomised trials of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular events. We stratified the findings by age, sex, and vascular risk factors, and validated them in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention of stroke. Additionally, we assessed whether any weight or height dependence was evident for the effect of aspirin on 20-year risk of colorectal cancer or any in-trial cancer.
RESULTS:
Among ten eligible trials of aspirin in primary prevention (including 117 279 participants), bodyweight varied four-fold and trial median weight ranged from 60·0 kg to 81·2 kg (p<0·0001). The ability of 75-100 mg aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events decreased with increasing weight (pinteraction=0·0072), with benefit seen in people weighing 50-69 kg (hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·65-0·85]) but not in those weighing 70 kg or more (0·95 [0·86-1·04]; 1·09 [0·93-1·29] for vascular death). Furthermore, the case fatality of a first cardiovascular event was increased by low-dose aspirin in people weighing 70 kg or more (odds ratio 1·33 [95% CI 1·08-1·64], p=0·0082). Higher doses of aspirin (≥325 mg) had the opposite interaction with bodyweight (difference pinteraction=0·0013), reducing cardiovascular events only at higher weight (pinteraction=0·017). Findings were similar in men and women, in people with diabetes, in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention, and in relation to height (pinteraction=0·0025 for cardiovascular events). Aspirin-mediated reductions in long-term risk of colorectal cancer were also weight dependent (pinteraction=0·038). Stratification by body size also revealed harms due to excess dosing: risk of sudden death was increased by aspirin in people at low weight for dose (pinteraction=0·0018) and risk of all-cause death was increased in people weighing less than 50 kg who were receiving 75-100 mg aspirin (HR 1·52 [95% CI 1·04-2·21], p=0·031). In participants aged 70 years or older, the 3-year risk of cancer was also increased by aspirin(1·20 [1·03-1·47], p=0·02), particularly in those weighing less than 70 kg (1·31 [1·07-1·61], p=0·009) and consequently in women (1·44 [1·11-1·87], p=0·0069).
INTERPRETATION:
Low doses of aspirin (75-100 mg) were only effective in preventing vascularevents in patients weighing less than 70 kg, and had no benefit in the 80% of men and nearly 50% of all women weighing 70 kg or more. By contrast, higher doses of aspirin were only effective in patients weighing 70 kg or more. Given that aspirin's effects on other outcomes, including cancer, also showed interactions with body size, a one-dose-fits-all approach to aspirin is unlikely to be optimal, and a more tailored strategy is required.
