To further dissect the genetic architecture of colorectal cancer (CRC), we performed whole-genome sequencing of 1,439 cases and 720 controls, imputed discovered sequence variants and Haplotype Reference Consortium panel variants into genome-wide association study data, and tested for association in 34,869 cases and 29,051 controls. Findings were followed up in an additional 23,262 cases and 38,296 controls. We discovered a strongly protective 0.3% frequency variant signal at CHD1 . In a combined meta-analysis of 125,478 individuals, we identified 40 new independent signals at P <5×10 −8 , bringing the number of known independent signals for CRC to approximately 100. New signals implicate lower-frequency variants, Krüppel-like factors, Hedgehog signaling, Hippo-YAP signaling, long noncoding RNAs, somatic drivers, and support a role of immune function. Heritability analyses suggest that CRC risk is highly polygenic, and larger, more comprehensive studies enabling rare variant analysis will improve understanding of underlying biology, and impact personalized screening strategies and drug development.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped?two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThe Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG’s guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThe key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThis cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Although the relation between red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer has been reported in several epidemiologic studies, very few investigated the potential mechanisms. This study examined multiple potential mechanisms in a large U.S. prospective cohort with a detailed questionnaire on meat type and meat cooking methods linked to databases for estimating intake of mutagens formed in meats cooked at high temperatures (heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), heme iron, nitrate, and nitrite. During 7 years of follow-up, 2,719 colorectal cancer cases were ascertained from a cohort of 300,948 men and women. The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) comparing the fifth to the first quintile for both red (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42; P trend < 0.001) and processed meat (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P trend = 0.017) intakes indicated an elevated risk for colorectal cancer. The potential mechanisms for this relation include heme iron (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29; P trend = 0.022), nitrate from processed meats (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P trend = 0.001), and heterocyclic amine intake [HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34; P trend < 0.001 for 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx) and HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P trend <0.001 for 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (DiMeIQx)]. In general, the elevated risks were higher for rectal cancer than for colon cancer, with the exception of MeIQx and DiMeIQx, which were only associated with colon cancer. In conclusion, we found a positive association for red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer; heme iron, nitrate/nitrite, and heterocyclic amines from meat may explain these associations.

BackgroundRed meat and processed meat have been associated with carcinogenesis at several anatomic sites, but no prospective study has examined meat intake in relation to a range of malignancies. We investigated whether red or processed meat intake increases cancer risk at a variety of sites.Methods and FindingsThe National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP (formerly the American Association for Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study is a cohort of approximately 500,000 people aged 50–71 y at baseline (1995–1996). Meat intake was estimated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals within quintiles of red and processed meat intake. During up to 8.2 y of follow-up, 53,396 incident cancers were ascertained. Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20% to 60%) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake. Furthermore, individuals in the highest quintile of processed meat intake had a 20% elevated risk for colorectal and a 16% elevated risk for lung cancer.ConclusionsBoth red and processed meat intakes were positively associated with cancers of the colorectum and lung; furthermore, red meat intake was associated with an elevated risk for cancers of the esophagus and liver.

Objective: To characterize the trends, distribution, potential determinants and public health implications of meat consumption within the USA.

Diets containing substantial amounts of red or preserved meats may increase the risk of various cancers, including colorectal cancer. This association may be due to a combination of factors such as the content of fat, protein, iron, and/or meat preparation (e.g., cooking or preserving methods). Red meat may be associated with colorectal cancer by contributing to N-nitroso compound (NOC) exposure. Humans can be exposed to NOCs by exogenous routes (from processed meats in particular) and by endogenous routes. Endogenous exposure to NOCs is dose-dependently related to the amount of red meat in the diet. Laboratory results have shown that meats cooked at high temperatures contain other potential mutagens in the form of heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). To investigate the role of these compounds, we have created separate databases for HCAs and PAHs, which we have used in conjunction with a validated meat-cooking food frequency questionnaire. The role of meat type, cooking methods, doneness levels, and meat-cooking mutagens has been examined in both case-control studies and prospective cohort studies, with mixed results. Here, we review the current epidemiologic knowledge of meat-related mutagens, and evaluate the types of studies that may be required in the future to clarify the association between meat consumption and colorectal cancer.

SummaryBackgroundColorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Previous analyses have only reported follow-up after flexible sigmoidoscopy for a maximum of 12 years. We aimed to examine colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening and 17 years of follow-up.MethodsIn this multicentre randomised trial (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial), done between Nov 14, 1994, and March 30, 1999, 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would probably attend screening if invited, were randomly assigned (1:2) to an intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or a control group (not contacted). Randomisation was done centrally in blocks of 12, and stratified by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The nature of the intervention did not allow the staff to be masked to arm of the trial; however, randomisation was done in batches so that the control group and participants not yet randomised were unaware of their allocation status. The primary outcomes were incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were estimated for intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 28352761.FindingsOur cohort analysis included 170 034 people: 112 936 in the control group and 57 098 in the intervention group, 40 621 (71%) of whom were screened and 16 477 (29%) were not screened. During screening and a median of 17·1 years' follow-up, colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 1230 individuals in the intervention group and 3253 in the control group, and 353 individuals in the intervention group versus 996 individuals in the control group died from colorectal cancer. In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence was reduced by 26% (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·70–0·80]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group and colorectal cancer mortality was reduced by 30% (0·70 [0·62–0·79]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group. In per-protocol analyses, adjusted for non-compliance, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were 35% (HR 0·65 [95% CI 0·59–0·71]) and 41% (0·59 [0·49–0·70]) lower in the screened group.InterpretationA single flexible sigmoidoscopy continues to provide substantial protection from colorectal cancer diagnosis and death, with protection lasting at least 17 years.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation.

SummaryBackgroundRemoval of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence.MethodsWe did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649.Findings253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6–11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40–0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31–0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06–1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29–0·84).InterpretationColonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.