Biomedical subjects

Giuseppe Malfitana

Publications and source records attributed to Giuseppe Malfitana.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

History of negative colorectal endoscopy and risk of rectosigmoid neoplasms at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening sigmoidoscopy can reduce incidence of colorectal cancer and mortality. The optimal re-screening interval has not yet been defined. This study is aimed at estimating the risk of distal advanced adenomas (diameter >/=10 mm, villous component >20%, high-grade dysplasia) and cancer at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in subjects aged 55-64 years who reported pre-screening negative colorectal endoscopy. PATIENTS: Eight thousands two hundred two subjects aged 55-64 years who underwent screening flexible sigmoidoscopy within the SCORE trial in Italy and who were able to report their previous history of colorectal endoscopy. RESULTS: Eight hundred eighty three of 8,202 subjects (10.8%) reported at least one prescreening negative endoscopy: among them, after 3-5 years, 6-10 years and >10 years intervals between last reported examination and screening endoscopy, the Absolute Risk of advanced adenomas was 1.5%, 0.9% and 0.9%; one cancer was detected (0.1%). Among the 7,319 subjects who did not report prescreening endoscopy the risks of advanced adenoma and cancer were 3.2% and 0.4%, respectively. Subjects with a previous colorectal examination had a 65% decreased risk of advanced adenomas (OR=0.35, 95%CI 0.18-0.66) and a 71% decreased risk of cancer (OR=0.29, 95%CI 0.04-1.12) as compared to those who did not. For subjects without family history of colorectal cancer the statistically significant decrease of the risk persisted up to ten years. The observed benefit seems not to apply to subjects with family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the interval between screening sigmoidoscopies could be safely expanded beyond 5 years for subjects without specific risk factors for colorectal cancer.

Adenoma, Villous↗

PubMed2005

Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates.

BACKGROUND: Although there is general consensus concerning the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening, there is a lack of agreement about which routine screening strategy should be adopted. We compared the participation and detection rates achievable through different strategies of colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: From November 1999 through June 2001 we conducted a multicenter, randomized trial in Italy among a sample of 55-64 year olds in the general population who had an average risk of colorectal cancer. People with previous colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, a recent (< or =2 years) colorectal endoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned, within the roster of their general practitioner, to 1) biennial FOBT (delivered by mail), 2) biennial FOBT (delivered by general practitioner or a screening facility), 3) patient's choice of FOBT or "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, 4) "once-only" sigmoidoscopy, or 5) sigmoidoscopy followed by biennial FOBT. An immunologic FOBT was used. Participation and detection rates of the strategies tested were compared using multivariable logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, and screening center. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of 28 319 people sampled, 1637 were excluded and 26 682 were randomly assigned to a screening arm. After excluding undelivered letters (n = 427), the participation rates for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 30.1% (682/2266), 28.1% (1654/5893), 27.1% (970/3579), 28.1% (1026/3650), and 28.1% (3049/10 867), respectively. Of the 2858 subjects screened by FOBT, 122 (4.3%) had a positive test result, 10 (3.5 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 39 (1.4%) had an advanced adenoma. Among the 4466 subjects screened by sigmoidoscopy, 341 (7.6%) were referred for colonoscopy, 18 (4 per 1000) had colorectal cancer, and 229 (5.1%) harbored an advanced adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: The participation rates were similar for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The detection rate for advanced neoplasia was three times higher following screening by sigmoidoscopy than by FOBT.

Colonic Polyps↗

PubMed2004

Predicting proximal advanced neoplasms at screening sigmoidoscopy.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess the predictive value for advanced proximal neoplasms (cancer, adenoma > or = 10 mm, or villous component > 20 percent, or severe dysplasia) of the characteristics of distal polyps. METHODS: The study was conducted among patients, aged 55 to 64 years, referred for colonoscopy in the Italian trial of sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Patients reporting a history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, recent colorectal endoscopy, or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. We compared the prevalence of advanced proximal neoplasia in patients with "low-risk" (1-2 tubular adenomas, < 10 mm, with low-grade dysplasia, or hyperplastic polyp) and in those with "high-risk" (size, > or = 10 mm, or > or = 3 adenomas, or villous component > 20 percent, or severe dysplasia) polyps in the distal colon. RESULTS: Of 426 patients with polyps > 5 mm, 29 (6.9 percent) were detected with an advanced proximal neoplasm (including 4 colorectal cancers). The prevalence of proximal advanced neoplasia was 9.4 percent among patients with high-risk distal polyps and 2.5 percent among those with low-risk lesions (adjusted odds ratio, 3.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.06-9.59). Approximately 40 people with low-risk distal polyps 6 to 9 mm should undergo colonoscopy to detect one proximal advanced neoplasm; the corresponding number for patients with high-risk distal polyps is 10. CONCLUSIONS: The 2.5 percent prevalence of proximal advanced neoplasms among people with low-risk 6-mm to 9-mm distal polyps is similar to the prevalence observed among people without distal polyps. Restricting colonoscopy referral to patients with high-risk distal polyps might represent a cost-effective strategy in a screening context.

Adenoma↗