Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Dec 5:355:i6188.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6188.

Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Parambir S Dulai et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of candidate agents (low and high dose aspirin, non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), calcium, vitamin D, folic acid, alone or in combination) for prevention of advanced metachronous neoplasia (that is, occurring at different times after resection of initial neoplasia) in individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia, through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, from inception to 15 October 2015; clinical trial registries.

Study selection: Randomized controlled trials in adults with previous colorectal neoplasia, treated with candidate chemoprevention agents, and compared with placebo or another candidate agent. Primary efficacy outcome was risk of advanced metachronous neoplasia; safety outcome was serious adverse events.

Data extraction: Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities (ranging from 1, indicating that the treatment has a high likelihood to be best, to 0, indicating the treatment has a high likelihood to be worst). Quality of evidence was appraised with GRADE criteria.

Results: 15 randomized controlled trials (12 234 patients) comparing 10 different strategies were included. Compared with placebo, non-aspirin NSAIDs were ranked best for preventing advanced metachronous neoplasia (odds ratio 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.24 to 0.53; SUCRA=0.98; high quality evidence), followed by low-dose aspirin (0.71, 0.41 to 1.23; SUCRA=0.67; low quality evidence). Low dose aspirin, however, was ranked the safest among chemoprevention agents (0.78, 0.43 to 1.38; SUCRA=0.84), whereas non-aspirin NSAIDs (1.23, 0.95 to 1.64; SUCRA=0.26) were ranked low for safety. High dose aspirin was comparable with low dose aspirin in efficacy (1.12, 0.59 to 2.10; SUCRA=0.58) but had an inferior safety profile (SUCRA=0.51). Efficacy of agents for reducing metachronous colorectal cancer could not be estimated.

Conclusions: Among individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia, non-aspirin NSAIDs are the most effective agents for the prevention of advanced metachronous neoplasia, whereas low dose aspirin has the most favorable risk:benefit profile.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42015029598).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: PSD and EM are supported by the NIDDK training grant 5T32DK007202. SS is supported by the NIH/NLM training grant T15LM011271 and the American College of Gastroenterology junior faculty development award. SG is partly supported by NCI 2 U54CA132379-06A1, as well as merit review award No 1 I01 HX001574-01A1 from the US Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service of the VA Office of Research and Development. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Network of included studies with the available direct comparisons for primary efficacy outcome (advanced metachronous neoplasia). The size of the nodes and the thickness of the edges are weighted according to the number of studies evaluating each treatment and direct comparison, respectively.
None
Fig 2 Comparative efficacy and safety of chemoprevention for metachronous adenomas in network meta-analysis. Comparisons should be read from left to right. Odds ratio (95% credible interval) for comparisons are in cells in common between column-defining and row-defining treatment. Bold cells are significant. For risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia, odds ratio <1 favors row-defining treatment. For risk of serious adverse events, odds ratio <1 favors column-defining treatment
None
Fig 3 SUCRA rankings for efficacy and safety outcomes (range 1=treatment has high likelihood of being, 0=treatment has high likelihood of being worst). For efficacy outcomes, higher score=better treatment for preventing advanced metachronous neoplasia. For serious adverse event outcome, higher scores=safer treatment with lower risk of serious adverse events. Table shows median ranks on both efficacy and safety outcomes (rank 1-10 on each scale) and 95% credible intervals

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359-86. 10.1002/ijc.29210 pmid:25220842. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:117-28. 10.1093/jnci/djq495 pmid:21228314. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brenner H, Kloor M, Pox CP. Colorectal cancer. Lancet 2014;383:1490-502. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61649-9 pmid:24225001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1095-105. 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969 pmid:24047059. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014;348:g2467 10.1136/bmj.g2467 pmid:24922745. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms