Endoscopic screening of relatives of patients with colorectal cancer

The fecal occult blood test as a tool for improved outpatient qualification for colonoscopy. A single-center experience and 10-year follow-up survey

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is not widely and easily available in all countries, even for symptomatic patients. This is one of the causes of tumors not being diagnosed until an advanced stage. The aim of this study was to estimate the efficacy of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in the diagnostic work-up of outpatients referred to a colorectal unit due to indistinct abdominal symptoms.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Among 10418 consecutive symptomatic individuals referred to the outpatient clinic, an immunochemical FOBT (Hem-Check 1^®) was recommended for 9432 patients with indistinct symptoms as a tool for qualifying them for colonoscopy. All the subjects were treated according to their diagnosis and followed-up for the next 10 years.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) was diagnosed in 535 individuals: 393/986 (39.9%) among patients with red-flag symptoms, and 142/951 (14.9%) of individuals with indistinct symptoms and a positive FOBT. In the latter group, less-advanced tumors, classed as such using Dukes' classification, were twice as common and more advanced CRC occurred twice as seldom than in the former. Cancer recurrence-free and overall survival periods after surgical treatment for CRC were significantly longer in patients with indistinct symptoms who qualified for diagnostic procedures on the basis of a positive FOBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with symptoms suggesting organic colon disease had a worse prognosis compared to individuals with non-specific symptoms. If bowel endoscopy is not widely and easily available, qualification for colonoscopy on the basis of alarm symptoms and a positive FOBT seems to be an effective strategy in early CRC diagnosis.

Adenoma detection rate in high-risk patients differs from that in average-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) are established as quality targets in average-risk (AR) individuals undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopy. Little is known about the ADR in high-risk (HR) individuals undergoing index or surveillance colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare ADR in HR versus AR individuals undergoing colonoscopy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study, tertiary care center.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

We reviewed records of 7357 patients who underwent colonoscopy by 66 multispecialty endoscopists at our institution during the period 2008 to 2009. Both screening and surveillance colonoscopies in AR and HR patients for CRC were studied. HR patients were further divided into 3 subgroups: those with a (1) personal history of polyps (PHP), (2) family history of polyps (FHP), and (3) family history of CRC (FHCRC). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate differences in ADR between the groups after adjusting for possible confounders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

ADR in HR patients.

RESULTS

The study included 4141 patients, of whom 2170 were AR and 1971 were HR. Patients in the HR group were older (64.5 ± 9.1 years vs 59.1 ± 7.9 years, P < .001). HR patients were more likely to have adenomas (30.7% vs 25.6%, P < .001). Adenomas were detected more often in the proximal colon than in the distal colon (29.3% vs 21.0%, P < .001 and 22.8% vs 15.8%, P < .001, respectively). Patients with a PHP had the highest ADR (33.1%, P < .001). However, after adjusting for confounders, HR status was not found to be associated with ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.6; P = .15 for females and 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.2; P = .61 for males). HR females were found to have a 40% greater likelihood of having proximal adenomas than AR females (1.4; 95% CI, 1.01-2; P = .04).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, single tertiary center.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a PHP have a significantly higher ADR compared with AR patients. Defining a minimum target ADR for individuals with a PHP undergoing surveillance colonoscopy is important.

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals in Familial Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals with familial colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the appropriate screening interval has not yet been determined. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare a 3-year with a 6-year screening interval.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individuals between ages 45 and 65 years with one first-degree relative with CRC age < 50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC were selected. Patients with zero to two adenomas at baseline were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group A (colonoscopy at 6 years) or group B (colonoscopy at 3 and 6 years). The primary outcome measure was advanced adenomatous polyps (AAPs). Risk factors studied included sex, age, type of family history, and baseline endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

A total of 528 patients were randomly assigned (group A, n = 262; group B, n = 266). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients with AAPs at the first follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 3 years in group B (3.5%). Also, the proportion of patients with AAPs at the final follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 6 years in group B (3.4%) was not significantly different. Only AAPs at baseline was a significant predictor for the presence of AAPs at first follow-up. After correction for the difference in AAPs at baseline, differences between the groups in the rate of AAPs at first follow-up and at the final examination were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In view of the relatively low rate of AAPs at 6 years and the absence of CRC in group A, we consider a 6-year surveillance interval appropriate. A surveillance interval of 3 years might be considered in patients with AAPs and patients with ≥ three adenomas.

Colonoscopy reduced distal colorectal cancer risk and excess cancer risk associated with family history

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy efficacy at preventing proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) is questioned, and little is known about efficacy in high-risk versus medium-risk populations. We investigated the relationship between colonoscopy screening, family history of colorectal cancer (FHCC), and CRC risk by site.

METHODS

Among 92,078 women of the E3N prospective cohort, 692 CRCs have been diagnosed after a median follow-up of 15.4 years. Cox proportional hazard models estimated adjusted hazards ratios according to subsites of cancer and FHCC.

RESULTS

A personal history of colonoscopy (PHC; n = 37,470) was associated with decreased rectal and distal colon cancer risks (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.42-0.78 and HR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.26-0.52, respectively), but not proximal colon cancer risk (HR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.64-1.18). In women with no prior colonoscopy, those with FHCC had a 80% higher CRC risk than those without FHCC. In women with previous colonoscopy, CRC risk was similar in women with and without FHCC (p for interaction = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Results showed colonoscopy ability to prevent distal cancers, but not proximal cancers in women. Colonoscopy screening also reduced the excess risk of women with FHCC to that of women with no FHCC.

Colonoscopic surveillance of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in a faecal occult blood screening programme

BACKGROUND

In some Italian areas, colonoscopic surveillance of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is provided as a part of local population-based faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening programmes. The objective of the present study was to assess the feasibility and early results of this surveillance model.

METHODS

Data from district screening centres were used to evaluate the process of identification and selection of eligible FDRs (residence in the Emilia-Romagna Region, age 40-75 years, no recent colonoscopy) of screen-detected CRC patients and the detected prevalence of disease. The probability for an FDR to undergo colonoscopy and to be diagnosed with CRC and advanced adenoma was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The sex- and age-standardised ratio of detected prevalence to that expected based on results from a colonoscopy screening study of the Italian general population was estimated.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2011, 9319 FDRs of 2437 screen-detected CRC patients (3.8 per patient) were identified and contacted. Their likelihood of being eligible for, and accepting, colonoscopy was 0.11 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.12). Among the 926 subjects undergoing colonoscopy, the prevalence of previous negative screening FOBT was 63%. Eleven CRCs (1.2%) and 100 advanced adenomas (10.8%) were detected. The standardised ratio of detected prevalence to that expected was 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.19-2.66) for CRC and 1.48 (1.04-2.05) for advanced adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure of selection of FDRs was extremely ineffective. Due to previous negative screening tests, the prevalence of disease was less than expected. A population-based FOBT screening programme is a highly unsuitable setting for the provision of surveillance to FDRs of CRC patients.

How well does family history predict who will get colorectal cancer? Implications for cancer screening and counseling

PURPOSE

Using a large, retrospective cohort from the Utah Population Database, we assess how well family history predicts who will acquire colorectal cancer during a 20-year period.

METHODS

Individuals were selected between ages 35 and 80 with no prior record of colorectal cancer diagnosis, as of the year 1985. Numbers of colorectal cancer-affected relatives and diagnosis ages were collected. Familial relative risk and absolute risk estimates were calculated. Colorectal cancer diagnoses in the cohort were counted between years 1986 and 2005. Cox regression and Harrell's C were used to measure the discriminatory power of resulting models.

RESULTS

A total of 431,153 individuals were included with 5,334 colorectal cancer diagnoses. Familial relative risk ranged from 0.83 to 12.39 and 20-year absolute risk from 0.002 to 0.21. With familial relative risk as the only predictor, Harrell's C = 0.53 and with age only, Harrell's C = 0.66. Familial relative risk combined with age produced a Harrell's C = 0.67.

CONCLUSION

Family history by itself is not a strong predictor of exactly who will acquire colorectal cancer within 20 years. However, stratification of risk using absolute risk probabilities may be more helpful in focusing screening on individuals who are more likely to develop the disease.

Increased risk of adenomas in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer: results of a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear to what extent the increased risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer and no known genetic disorders is associated with a higher adenoma prevalence. Our aim is to estimate the relative difference in adenoma prevalence and its age-pattern in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer compared to those without.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to identify colonoscopy studies reporting the adenoma prevalence by age. Using multilevel logistic regression, we examined how the adenoma prevalence by age differed between individuals with and without a family history of colorectal cancer. We excluded members of families with a known genetic disorder.

RESULTS

Thirteen colonoscopy studies were identified. The adenoma prevalence was significantly higher in individuals with a family history than in those without (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-3.5). The adenoma prevalence increased with age (OR per year of age 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07). The age trend did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer have a considerably higher prevalence of adenomas compared to individuals without a family history. This is consistent with their increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer prevention: results from a German online registry on 269000 cases

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of screening colonoscopy in general use remains to be determined. Here we report data over a 39-month study period collected in a nationwide online registry.

STUDY

Data from consecutive screening colonoscopies performed on asymptomatic patients in the practices of 280 participating gastroenterologists (age 55-99 years) were collected in an online registry. The number and histology of colorectal polyps and carcinomas, complication rates of colonoscopy and polypectomy were registered. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma of >or= 10 mm in diameter, villous or tubulovillous in histology, or presence of high-grade dysplasia.

RESULTS

A total of 269 144 colonoscopies (male 44%) were evaluated. Tubular, villous/tubulovillous adenomas and invasive cancers were found in 15.6, 3.7, and 0.8%, respectively. Advanced adenomas amounted to 7.1%. In 95% of polyps greater than 5mm and less than 30 mm immediate polypectomy was performed. In 399 of the 575 carcinomas with complete tumor node metastasis stages, which were detected during colonoscopy, early stages dominated (UICC stages I and II in 43 and 27%, respectively). Complication rate was low and no fatalities were observed: cardiopulmonary complication in 0.10% of the colonoscopies, bleeding in 0.8% of polypectomies most of which were managed endoscopically (surgery in 0.03% of polypectomies). Perforation occurred in 0.02% of the colonoscopies and 0.09% of polypectomies.

CONCLUSION

Colonic neoplasias are detected in about 20% of patients most of which are immediately removed by polypectomy at a low risk. Polypectomy of adenomas and low UICC stages in cancer patients during screening colonoscopy may be tools for fighting colorectal cancer mortality.

Colonoscopy for screening and follow up of patients with a family history of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the minimum family history of colorectal cancer (CRC), which justifies colonoscopy and to establish whether further colonic assessment is necessary after a negative screening colonoscopy.

METHOD

A retrospective review of every colonoscopy undertaken for family screening at the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals, Reading between October 1996 and July 2004.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-two patients (261 women) with an average age of 48 years (range 14-84) were screened. Three cancers in patients over the age of 60 years and 49 adenomas were found in 37 patients. Twenty three of 281 (8%) patients with a 'low-risk' family history (one in 12 or less lifetime risk of developing CRC) had either a cancer or an adenoma. Eighteen of 151 (12%) patients with a 'high-risk' family history (one in 10 or greater) had a similar positive colonoscopy. Thirteen of 15 patients who had an adenoma aged under 45 years had a high-risk family history. Seventy-three patients subsequently underwent two or more follow-up colonoscopies. There were 22 adenomatous polyps found in 12 patients (16%) at the first screening, nine adenomas in seven patients in the second colonoscopy and four adenomas found in four patients in all subsequent colonoscopies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a low-risk family history have a similar adenoma pick-up to that of the general population. These patients need not be screened below the age of 50 unless symptomatic. Follow up of low-risk family history (FH) patients with a negative screening colonoscopy is unlikely to be beneficial.

Interactions among physicians, patients, and first-degree relatives in the familial screening of colorectal cancer in France

AIMS

To characterize determining factors for compliance with colonoscopy recommendations in the familial screening of colorectal cancer through exploration of individual psychosociological factors and issues relating to patient/physician/sibling communication.

METHODS

A qualitative approach involving a review of the literature and interviews with general practitioners, specialists, patients, and their siblings.

RESULTS

A confrontation of the content of interviews with data from the literature made it possible to confirm the relevance of classic prevention models, the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior in the French cultural and healthcare environments, as well as their ability to identify the main individual factors liable to motivate or to discourage familial screening. The family network plays a decisive part in the transmission of information from the patient towards siblings. Physicians have expectations relating to communication aids and backup. This study above all highlights the difficulty in determining who is best suited to giving information to the patient, and when and how to relay this information to first-degree relatives.

CONCLUSION

In view of the many difficulties in establishing interaction between patient, physician and siblings that is liable to lead on to efficient screening, we propose the study of the usefulness of a health-counseling intervention aimed to tailor and follow-up the delivery of screening information to the first-degree relatives.

Cancer Care Ontario Colonoscopy Standards: standards and evidentiary base

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cause of non-tobacco-related cancer deaths in Canadian men and women, accounting for 10% of all cancer deaths. An estimated 7800 men and women will be diagnosed with CRC, and 3250 will die from the disease in Ontario in 2007. Given that CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world, the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease would be through screening. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario's Colonoscopy Standards Expert Panel, which was convened in March 2006 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The recommendations will form the basis of the quality assurance program for colonoscopy delivered in support of Ontario's CRC screening program.

Colorectal cancer screening: results of a 5-year program in asymptomatic subjects at increased risk

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The province of Ferrara has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Italy. In January 2000, we set up a colonoscopy screening program focussing on first-degree relatives of CRC patients. We now report the results 5 years after the beginning of the project. SCREENEES AND METHODS: In October 1999, we started a campaign stressing the usefulness of colonoscopy for the first-degree relatives of CRC patients. Subjects included in the screening program were aged between 45 and 75 years with at least one first-degree relative affected by CRC. They were invited to an interview where a physician suggested colonoscopy as a screening option.

RESULTS

In 5 years, 776 subjects were interviewed and 733 (94.4%) agreed to an endoscopic examination (M/F:375/401; mean age 55 years): 562 colonoscopies were performed. Adenomas and cancers were found in 122 (21.7%) and 12 (2.1%) subjects, respectively. Histological examination in 181 persons with lesions (32.8%) showed (most serious lesion quoted) 47 hyperplastic polyps (26% of all lesions), 2 serrated adenomas (1.1%), 68 tubular adenomas (48%), 24 tubulovillous adenomas (13.3%), 9 adenomas with high grade dysplasia (5%) and 12 adenocarcinomas (6.6%). The majority of the cancers were at an early stage (8 Dukes A and 3 Dukes B). Sedation was used in only 42 colonoscopies (7.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

A colonoscopy-based screening in this selected high-risk population is feasible. Even without sedation subjects readily agreed to the endoscopic procedure. We identified a significant number of advanced neoplasms and cancers at an early stage suggesting that this could be a useful tool in early identification of CRC.

Colonoscopy surveillance of individuals at risk of familial colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Individuals with first degree relatives affected with colorectal cancer (CRC) at a young age, or more than one relative affected but who do not fulfil the Amsterdam criteria for a diagnosis of hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC), are believed to be at an increased risk of CRC. However, there is a paucity of prospective data on the potential benefit of colonoscopic surveillance in such groups categorised by empiric family history criteria. We report a prospective study of 448 individuals seeking counselling about their perceived family history of CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Following pedigree tracing, verification, and risk assignment by genetic counsellors, colonoscopy was undertaken for those at a moderate or high risk (HNPCC). Those classified as low risk were reassured and discharged without surveillance. Here we report our findings at the prevalence screen in the 176 patients of the 448 assessed who underwent colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Fifty three individuals had a family history that met Amsterdam criteria (median age 43 years) and 123 individuals were classed as moderate risk (median age 43 years). No cancers were detected at colonoscopy in any group. Four individuals (8% (95% confidence limits (CL) 0.4-15%)) in the high risk group had an adenoma detected at a median age of 46 years and all four were less than 50 years of age. Five (4% (95% CL 0.6- 8%)) of the moderate risk individuals had an adenoma at a median age of 54 years, two of whom were less than 50 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that the prevalence of significant neoplasia in groups defined by family history is low, particularly in younger age groups. These prospective data call into question the value of colonoscopy before the age of 50 years in moderate risk individuals.

Applying evidence-based guidelines improves use of colonoscopy resources in patients with a moderate risk of colorectal neoplasia

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether applying National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines for colorectal cancer prevention would reduce the number of follow-up colonoscopies.

DESIGN

A prospective audit of colonoscopic surveillance decisions before and after the intervention.

SETTING

The endoscopy suite at a metropolitan tertiary hospital three months before and after January 2000.

INTERVENTION

Dissemination of NHMRC guidelines, and supervision of application of the guidelines by a nurse coordinator.

SUBJECTS

We compared colonoscopic surveillance decisions before and after the intervention in two groups of 100 consecutive patients after polypectomy and in two groups of 50 consecutive patients with a family history of colorectal cancer after a normal colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in concordance of decisions with NHMRC guidelines; and effect on number of follow-up colonoscopies.

RESULTS

After the intervention, the proportion of postpolypectomy surveillance decisions matching the guidelines increased from 37% to 96% (P < 0.05). The mean time to repeat colonoscopy after polypectomy increased from 2.7 to 3.5 years (P < 0.005) (ie, a 23% reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies performed per year). Likewise, the proportion of family-history surveillance decisions matching the guidelines increased from 63% to 96%. Adhering to the guidelines resulted in a 17% reduction in colonoscopies performed on the basis of a family history of colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Supervised application of evidence-based guidelines to a colorectal cancer surveillance program significantly reduces the number of surveillance colonoscopies performed.

Colonic screening and surveillance

Screening for colorectal cancer has not obtained worldwide acceptance in spite of its proven survival benefit for average-risk persons and some high-risk groups. The incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer are worrying in Europe as well as in the USA, Australia and Japan. The best evidence-based studies are those published on screening using faecal occult blood tests, endoscopic methods and different tumour markers having been evaluated to a lesser degree. Feasibility studies are necessary before massive screening can be undertaken because the results obtained from randomized studies may not be reproduced to a satisfactory degree in average- as well as high-risk populations. Primary prevention by dietary intervention and drugs has been studied in great detail, so far without any major breakthrough. This chapter will address different screening methods in populations with a varying risk of colorectal cancer, together with providing a short review of prevention and intervention strategies.

The extent of duodenogastric reflux in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

It is known that duodenogastro-oesophageal reflux (DGOR) increases with worsening gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). It is unclear whether this is accompanied by increasing duodenogastric reflux (DGR).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the extent of DGR in a control group and 66 patients with GORD, using the technique of ambulatory gastric bilirubin monitoring.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients with reflux symptoms (30 grade 0 or 1 oesophagitis (group 1), 16 grade 2 or 3 oesophagitis (group 2), 20 Barrett's oesophagus (group 3)) and 17 healthy controls were studied. All underwent oesophageal manometry followed by 24-h ambulatory oesophageal and gastric pH monitoring and gastric bilirubin monitoring.

RESULTS

Median per cent total oesophageal acid exposure (pH < 4) was significantly less in the control group (0.6%) than in group 1 (2.8%, P< 0.05) and groups 2 and 3 (7.5% and 7.8% respectively, P< 0.001). There was no significant difference between any group in median per cent total time gastric pH was greater than 4. There was no significant difference in median per cent total gastric bilirubin exposure (absorbance > 0.14) between any group. However, in each group gastric bilirubin exposure was greater in the supine position than the upright position, being significantly greater in the control group (P< 0.05) and group 1 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastric bilirubin exposure is similar across the spectrum of GORD severity. It is greater in the supine than in the upright position.

Effect of omeprazole on antral duodenogastric reflux in Barrett oesophagus

BACKGROUND

The effect of long-term acid suppression therapy in Barrett oesophagus remains unknown, but the high intragastric pH generated has been shown to increase the cytotoxicity of duodenal refluxate on foregut mucosa. However, recent work suggests that duodenogastric reflux (DGR) may be reduced by omeprazole.

AIM

To investigate the effect of omeprazole on the reflux of duodenal contents into the gastric antrum in Barrett patients and healthy subjects.

METHOD

Fifteen patients with Barrett oesophagus and 14 healthy subjects underwent oesophageal manometry followed by 24-h ambulatory oesophageal and gastric pH and gastric bilirubin monitoring. The bilirubin sensor (modified by the addition of a weighted tip to facilitate manoeuvrability) was sited in the gastric antrum under fluoroscopic control. Combined ambulatory pH and bilirubin monitoring was repeated after 2 weeks on omeprazole 20 mg b.d.

RESULTS

Changes in oesophageal acid reflux and gastric alkaline shift due to omeprazole were as expected (P < 0.001). There was no difference in total antral DGR between the Barrett and control groups (P = 0.56), and omeprazole had no significant effect on DGR in either group (P = 0.77 and 0.27, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DGR into the antrum is of a similar level in Barrett patients and healthy controls. Omeprazole does not reduce the reflux of duodenal contents across the pylorus. Further work is required on the increased cytotoxic potential of continuing DGR in those on long-term acid suppression.

Yield from colonoscopic screening in people with a strong family history of common colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

People with a strong family history of common (so-called 'sporadic') colorectal cancer are generally advised to undergo colonoscopic screening, but the starting age for this is unclear. An audit was performed to study the age-related yield of screening colonoscopy in this risk group.

METHODS

A prospective audit of the outcome of screening colonoscopy was performed on a cohort of 232 people with a strong family history of common colorectal cancer. All were registrants in a familial bowel cancer service solely because of their family medical history. They had no bowel symptoms and no prior endoscopic investigation of the large bowel.

RESULTS

Neoplastic lesions were detected by using colonoscopy in 33 participants. In 27 participants, the major lesion was a small tubular adenoma, four had an advanced adenoma and two had cancer. More neoplastic (P= 0.02) and advanced neoplastic (P= 0.03) lesions were found in those patients aged > or = 50 years. Only one advanced adenoma was detected in a participant below the age of 50 years.

CONCLUSION

The yield from screening colonoscopy in young people (< 50 years) with a strong family history of common colorectal cancer is low, placing doubt on the need for colonoscopic screening before the age of 50 years.