Dataset Information

Risk of colorectal cancer in first degree relatives of patients with colorectal polyps: nationwide case-control study in Sweden.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in first degree relatives (parents and full siblings) of patients with precursor lesions (polyps) for CRC.

Design

Case-control study.

Setting

Linkage to the multi-generation register and gastrointestinal ESPRESSO (Epidemiology Strengthened by histoPathology Reports in Sweden) histopathology cohort in Sweden.

Participants

68 060 patients with CRC and 333 753 matched controls.

Main outcome measures

Multivariable adjusted odds ratios of CRC according to the number of first degree relatives with a colorectal polyp and the histology of polyps and age at diagnosis in first degree relatives. Subgroup analysis was also performed according to age at CRC diagnosis and evaluated the joint association of family history of colorectal polyps and family history of CRC.

Results

After adjusting for family history of CRC and other covariates, having a first degree relative with a colorectal polyp (8.4% (5742/68 060) in cases and 5.7% (18 860/333 753) in controls) was associated with a higher risk of CRC (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.35 to 1.45). The odds ratios ranged from 1.23 for those with hyperplastic polyps to 1.44 for those with tubulovillous adenomas. To better put this risk in perspective, the age specific absolute risk of colon and rectal cancers was estimated according to family history of polyps based on the 2018 national CRC incidence in Sweden. For example, the absolute risk of colon cancer in individuals aged 60-64 years with and without a family history of colorectal polyp was, respectively, 94.3 and 67.9 per 100 000 for men and 89.1 and 64.1 per 100 000 for women. The association between family history of polyps and CRC risk was strengthened by the increasing number of first degree relatives with polyps (≥2 first degree relatives: 1.70, 1.52 to 1.90, P<0.001 for trend) and decreasing age at polyp diagnosis (<50 years: 1.77, 1.57 to 1.99, P<0.001 for trend). A particularly strong association was found for early onset CRC diagnosed before age 50 years (≥2 first degree relatives: 3.34, 2.05 to 5.43, P=0.002 for heterogeneity by age of CRC diagnosis). In the joint analysis, the odds ratio of CRC for individuals with two or more first degree relatives with polyps but no CRC was 1.79 (1.52 to 2.10), with one first degree relative with CRC but no polyps was 1.70 (1.65 to 1.76), and with two or more first degree relatives with both polyps and CRC was 5.00 (3.77 to 6.63) (P<0.001 for interaction).

Conclusions

After adjusting for family history of CRC, the siblings and children of patients with colorectal polyps are still at higher risk of CRC, particularly early onset CRC. Early screening for CRC might be considered for first degree relatives of patients with polyps.

SUBMITTER: Song M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8083372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFirst-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than the general population. For this reason, screening guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 5 or 10 y, starting at the age of 40, depending on whether colorectal cancer in the index-case is diagnosed at <60 or ?60 y, respectively. However, studies on the risk of neoplastic lesions are inconclusive. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of advanced neoplasia (three or more non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenoma, or invasive cancer) in FDR of patients with colorectal cancer compared to average-risk individuals (i.e., asymptomatic adults 50 to 69 y of age with no family history of colorectal cancer).Methods and findingsThis cross-sectional analysis includes data from 8,498 individuals undergoing their first lifetime screening colonoscopy between 2006 and 2012 at six Spanish tertiary hospitals. Of these individuals, 3,015 were defined as asymptomatic FDR of patients with colorectal cancer ("familial-risk group") and 3,038 as asymptomatic with average-risk for colorectal cancer ("average-risk group"). The familial-risk group was stratified as one FDR, with one family member diagnosed with colorectal cancer at ?60 y (n = 1,884) or at <60 y (n = 831), and as two FDR, with two family members diagnosed with colorectal cancer at any age (n = 300). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used for between-group comparisons after adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, and center). Compared with the average-risk group, advanced neoplasia was significantly more prevalent in individuals having two FDR with colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-2.66, p < 0.001), but not in those having one FDR with colorectal cancer diagnosed at ?60 y (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.83-1.27, p = 0.77) and <60 y (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.90-1.58, p = 0.20). After the age of 50 y, men developed advanced neoplasia over two times more frequently than women and advanced neoplasia appeared at least ten y earlier. Fewer colonoscopies by 2-fold were required to detect one advanced neoplasia in men than in women. Major limitations of this study were first that although average-risk individuals were consecutively included in a randomized control trial, this was not the case for all individuals in the familial-risk cohort; and second, the difference in age between the average-risk and familial-risk cohorts.ConclusionsIndividuals having two FDR with colorectal cancer showed an increased risk of advanced neoplasia compared to those with average-risk for colorectal cancer. Men had over 2-fold higher risk of advanced neoplasia than women, independent of family history. These data suggest that screening colonoscopy guidelines should be revised in the familial-risk population.

Project description:PurposeAlthough there is a high prevalence of keratoconus in the Middle East including Israel, limited data is available describing first-degree relatives of patients with sporadic keratoconus (KC) using Scheimpflug imaging. The purpose of this study is to accurately phenotype first-degree relatives of patients with sporadic KC in Israel using corneal tomography, which may help determine the genetic aetiology of KC.MethodsFirst-degree relatives (N = 56) of 16 KC probands participated in this prospective case-control study. Healthy controls (N = 96) were from a previous study. Autorefraction, visual acuity, slit lamp biomicroscopy, retinoscopy, subjective refraction and Scheimpflug imaging (CSO Sirius Topographer) of keratoconus patients and their first-degree relatives were evaluated. The worse eye was used for KC and KC suspects. The main outcome measure was prevalence of abnormal corneal topography and tomography parameters, which was compared between first-degree relatives vs controls. p values < 0.05 were considered significant.ResultsKC (N = 2) or KC suspect (N = 8) was diagnosed in 18% (95% CI 8-28%) of the first-degree relatives. At least one abnormal corneal parameter was evident in 34% of first-degree relatives, while this was significantly lower for controls (14%, χ2 (1, N = 152) = 8.8, p = 0.01). Qualitative analysis showed KC first-degree relatives had significantly more abnormal anterior corneal topography patterns than controls (34% vs 17%, χ2 (1, N = 152) = 5.9, p = 0.02). For first-degree relatives, sex was not a factor influencing prevalence of corneal abnormalities (18% for both men and women, χ2 (1, N = 56) = 0.0, p = 1.0). A significant correlation was found for first-degree relatives between age and most corneal parameters, while this was not evident for the control group.Conclusions and relevanceEye care practitioners should consider first-degree relatives of patients with KC at moderate risk for the disease and/or corneal abnormalities.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Having a first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant risk factor for CRC. Counseling for FDRs regarding CRC risk factors and personalized risk is important to improve knowledge and screening compliance. METHODS:A 3-arm randomized controlled trial compared tailored in-person and telephone CRC counseling interventions with controls among FDRs who were not mutation carriers for known hereditary cancer syndromes, but who were considered to be at an increased risk based on family history. It was hypothesized that both telephone and in-person approaches would increase CRC knowledge, screening adherence, perceived risk accuracy, and psychosocial functioning compared with controls. The authors anticipated greater satisfaction with the in-person approach. CRC knowledge, risk perception, psychosocial functioning, and intention to screen were assessed at baseline and at 2-week and 2-month follow-ups (primary endpoint). RESULTS:A total of 278 FDRs (mean age, 47.4 years, standard deviation, 11.38 years) participated. At baseline, participants reported low to moderate CRC knowledge and overestimations of risk. Screening adherence was 73.7%. At 2 months, participants in the in-person arm and telephone arm demonstrated improvements in knowledge and perceived risk and were not found to be statistically different from each other. However, when comparing each intervention with controls, knowledge in the in-person arm was found to be statistically significantly higher, but the difference between the telephone and control arms was not. Cancer-related stress reduced over time in all groups. Intervention benefits were maintained at 1 year. Baseline screening intent/adherence were high, and therefore did not reach statistically significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS:Tailored in-person or telephone formats for providing CRC risk counseling, incorporating behavioral interventions, appear to improve knowledge and risk perceptions, with high client satisfaction.