Cited by 1,337Genetic factors in colorectal cancerColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer

Open access
Järvinen, Heikki J., Aarnio, Markku, Mustonen, Harri, Aktan–Collan, Katja, Aaltonen, Lauri A., Peltomäki, Päivi, Chapelle, Albert De La, Mecklin, Jukka–Pekka·2000·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background & aims Identification of the hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome enables prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) by means of colonoscopy and polypectomies. We evaluated the efficacy of screening in a controlled trial over 15 years.Methods Incidence of CRC and survival were compared in 2 cohorts of at-risk members of 22 families with HNPCC. Colonic screening at 3-year intervals was arranged for 133 subjects; 119 control subjects had no screening. Genetic testing was offered to subjects in whose families the causative mutation was known.Results CRC developed in 8 screened subjects (6%) compared with 19 control subjects (16 %; P = 0.014). The CRC rate was reduced by 62%. In mutation-positive subjects alone, the CRC rates were 18% in screened subjects and 41% in controls (P = 0.02). The decrease resulted from the removal of adenomas in 13 mutation-positive individuals (30%) and in 6 subjects with unknown mutation status (40%). All CRCs in the study group were local, causing no deaths, compared with 9 deaths caused by CRC in the controls. The overall death rates were 10 vs. 26 subjects in the study and control groups (P = 0.003), 4 vs. 12 in mutation-positive subjects (P = 0.05).Conclusions Colonoscopic screening at 3-year intervals more than halves the risk of CRC, prevents CRC deaths, and decreases overall mortality by about 65% in HNPCC families.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0016-5085(00)70168-5

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Screening for Lynch syndrome has been proven cost-effective, and surveillance for colon cancer with regular colonoscopies significantly decreases morbidity and mortality in affected patients.

    “Screening has been proven cost-effective, and surveillance for colon cancer with regular colonoscopies significantly decreases morbidity and mortality in affected patients (60, 61).”

    From Adrenocortical carcinoma (2014) · cites this paper as [61]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Lynch HT, Smyrk T. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome). An updated review. Cancer 1996;78:1149- 1167.
  2. Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, Salovaara R, Aaltonen LA, de la Chapelle A, Peltoma ¨ki P, Mecklin J-P, Ja ¨rvinen HJ. Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer 1999;81:214-218.
  3. Vasen HFA, van Ballegooijen M, Buskens E, Kleibeuker JK, Taal BG, Griffioen G, Nagengast FM, Menko FH, Meera Khan P. A cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal screening of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma gene carriers. Cancer 1998; 82:1632-1637.
  4. Holmberg M, Kristo P, Chadwicks RB, Mecklin J-P, Ja ¨rvinen HJ, de la Chapelle A, Nystro ¨m-Lahti M, Peltoma ¨ki P. Mutation sharing, predominant involvement of the MLH1 gene and description of four novel mutations in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal can- cer. Hum Mutat 1998;11:482 [Mutation Note 144; online 1997].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Järvinen, H. J., Aarnio, M., Mustonen, H., Aktan–Collan, K., Aaltonen, L. A., Peltomäki, P., Chapelle, A. D. L., & Mecklin, J.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-05
Volume
118
Issue
5
Pages
829-834
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156299764
Cited by
1,337
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 51
FWCI
28.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA67941, CA16058, P30CA016058)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
Lynch syndrome, colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy, polypectomy, colorectal adenoma, cancer prevention, genetic testing, colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality
MeSH terms
MutL Protein Homolog 1, Adult, Carrier Proteins, Colonoscopy, Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Mutation, Neoplasm Proteins, Nuclear Proteins, Prospective Studies, Risk, Sigmoidoscopy, Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review