Search

Background: We quantified the individual and joint contribution of contemporaneous causal behavioural exposures on the future burden of oesophageal and stomach cancers and their subtypes and assessed whether these burdens differ between population groups in Australia, as such estimates are currently lacking. Methods: We combined hazard ratios from seven pooled Australian cohorts (N = 367,058) linked to national cancer and death registries with exposure prevalence from the 2017–2018 National Health Survey to estimate Population Attributable Fractions (PAFs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), accounting for competing risk of death. Results: Current and past smoking explain 35.2% (95% CI = 11.7–52.4%), current alcohol consumption exceeding three drinks/day 15.7% (95% CI = 0.9–28.4%), and these exposures jointly 41.4% (95% CI = 19.8–57.3%) of oesophageal squamous cell carcinomas in Australia. Current and past smoking contribute 38.2% (95% CI = 9.4–57.9%), obesity 27.0% (95% CI = 0.6–46.4%), and these exposures jointly 54.4% (95% CI = 25.3–72.1%) of oesophageal adenocarcinomas. Overweight and obesity explain 36.1% (95% CI = 9.1–55.1%), current and past smoking 24.2% (95% CI = 4.2–40.0%), and these exposures jointly 51.2% (95% CI = 26.3–67.8%) of stomach cardia cancers. Several population groups had a significantly higher smoking-attributable oesophageal cancer burden, including men and those consuming excessive alcohol. Conclusions: Smoking is the leading preventable behavioural cause of oesophageal cancers and overweight/obesity of stomach cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background People vary in how they respond to symptoms. The purpose of this study was to assess whether serious disease is more likely to be present in patients who report that they take any symptoms less seriously than other people do, and to assess the reliability of a question which can be used to identify the extent to which patients take any symptom seriously. To do this we assessed whether the likelihood of detecting colorectal cancer is higher in patients who report that they take symptoms less seriously than other people do. Methods Cross sectional study of 7736 patients who had colonoscopy to find colorectal cancer. Before colonoscopy, patients completed a questionnaire on bowel symptoms and were also asked: “Compared to other people of your age and sex, how seriously do you think you take any symptoms?” Likelihood of detecting colorectal cancer according to responses to this question was assessed by logistic regression models, unadjusted and adjusted for symptoms and other known predictors of colorectal cancer. Question reliability was assessed in a different sample using percentage agreement and the kappa statistic for the answers given by each patient on two occasions. Agreement between patient and doctor responses was also assessed (n = 108). Results Patients who reported they took symptoms less seriously were 3.28 (95%CI: 2.02, 5.33) times more likely to have colorectal cancer than patients who took symptoms more seriously than others. The effect was smaller (1.85 (95%CI: 1.11, 3.09)), but remained statistically significant in models including symptoms and other predictors of colorectal cancer. The question was reliable: on repeat questioning, 70% of responses were in absolute agreement and 92% were within 1 category, kappa 57%. Patient-doctor agreement was 66%, within 1 category 92%, kappa 48%. Conclusion Patients who take their symptoms less seriously have a considerably higher likelihood of colorectal cancer than those who identify themselves as taking any symptoms more seriously than other people. The question is easy to ask and has good reliability. Doctors also reliably identify how patients assess themselves. Assessment of how seriously patients take any symptoms can contribute to the clinical assessment of a patient.

Abstract Background Colonoscopy is an invasive and costly procedure with a risk of serious complications. It would therefore be useful to prioritise colonoscopies by identifying people at higher risk of either cancer or premalignant adenomas. The aim of this study is to assess a model that identifies people with colorectal cancer, advanced, large and small adenomas. Methods Patients seen by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons between April 2004 and December 2006 completed a validated, structured self-administered questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Information was collected on symptoms, demographics and medical history. Multinomial logistic regression was used to simultaneously assess factors associated with findings on colonoscopy of cancer, advanced adenomas and adenomas sized 6 -9 mm, and ≤ 5 mm. The area under the curve of ROC curve was used to assess the incremental gain of adding demographic variables, medical history and symptoms (in that order) to a base model that included only age. Results Sociodemographic variables, medical history and symptoms (from 8,204 patients) jointly provide good discrimination between colorectal cancer and no abnormality (AUC 0.83), but discriminate less well between adenomas and no abnormality (AUC advanced adenoma 0.70; other adenomas 0.67). Age is the dominant risk factor for cancer and adenomas of all sizes. Having a colonoscopy within the last 10 years confers protection for cancers and advanced adenomas. Conclusions Our models provide guidance about which factors can assist in identifying people at higher risk of disease using easily elicited information. This would allow colonoscopy to be prioritised for those for whom it would be of most benefit.

Abstract Background Bowel symptoms are often considered an indication to perform colonoscopy to identify or rule out colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps. Investigation of bowel symptoms for this purpose is recommended by numerous clinical guidelines. However, the evidence for this practice is unclear. The objective of this study is to systematically review the evidence about the association between bowel symptoms and colorectal cancer or polyps. Methods We searched the literature extensively up to December 2008, using MEDLINE and EMBASE and following references. For inclusion in the review, papers from cross sectional, case control and cohort studies had to provide a 2×2 table of symptoms by diagnosis (colorectal cancer or polyps) or sufficient data from which that table could be constructed. The search procedure, quality appraisal, and data extraction was done twice, with disagreements resolved with another reviewer. Summary ROC analysis was used to assess the diagnostic performance of symptoms to detect colorectal cancer and polyps. Results Colorectal cancer was associated with rectal bleeding (AUC 0.66; LR+ 1.9; LR- 0.7) and weight loss (AUC 0.67, LR+ 2.5, LR- 0.9). Neither of these symptoms was associated with the presence of polyps. There was no significant association of colorectal cancer or polyps with change in bowel habit, constipation, diarrhoea or abdominal pain. Neither the clinical setting (primary or specialist care) nor study type was associated with accuracy. Most studies had methodological flaws. There was no consistency in the way symptoms were elicited or interpreted in the studies. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that the common practice of performing colonoscopies to identify cancers in people with bowel symptoms is warranted only for rectal bleeding and the general symptom of weight loss. Bodies preparing guidelines for clinicians and consumers to improve early detection of colorectal cancer need to take into account the limited value of symptoms.

Abstract Background Bowel symptoms are considered indicators of the presence of colorectal cancer and other bowel diseases. Self administered questionnaires that elicit information about lower bowel symptoms have not been assessed for reliability, although this has been done for upper bowel symptoms. Our aim was to develop a self administered questionnaire for eliciting the presence, nature and severity of lower bowel symptoms potentially related to colorectal cancer, and assess its reliability. Methods Immediately before consulting a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon, 263 patients likely to have a colonoscopy completed the questionnaire. Reliability was assessed in two ways: by assessing agreement between patient responses and (a) responses given by the doctor at the consultation; and (b) responses given by patients two weeks later. Results There was more than 75% agreement for 78% of the questions for the patient-doctor comparison and for 92% of the questions for the patient-patient comparison. Agreement for the length of time a symptom was present, its severity, duration, frequency of occurrence and whether or not medical consultation had been sought, all had agreement of greater than 70%. Over all questions, the chance corrected agreement for the patient-doctor comparison had a median kappa of 65% (which represents substantial agreement), interquartile range 57–72%. The patient-patient comparison also showed substantial agreement with a median kappa of 75%, interquartile range 68–81%. Conclusion This self administered questionnaire about lower bowel symptoms is a useful way of eliciting details of bowel symptoms. It is a reliable instrument that is acceptable to patients and easily completed. Its use could guide the clinical consultation, allowing a more efficient, comprehensive and useful interaction, ensuring that all symptoms are assessed. It will also be a useful tool in research studies on bowel symptoms and their predictive value for colorectal cancer and other diseases. Studies assessing whether bowel symptoms predict the presence of colorectal cancer should provide estimates of the reliability of the symptom elicitation.