Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010.They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines. IntroductionAccording to recent estimates by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [1], colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in Europe with 432 000 new cases reported annually in men and women combined. It is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Europe with 212 000 deaths reported in 2008.Worldwide, CRC ranks third in incidence and fourth in mortality with an estimated 1.2 million cases and 0.6 million deaths annually. In the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU), CRC ranks first in incidence and second in mortality, with approximately 334000 new cases and 149000 deaths estimated in 2008.Even in those Member States in the lower range for age-standardized rates of CRC, the burden of disease is significantly greater when compared with many other HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript regions of the world (see reference [1]). CRC is therefore an important health problem across the EU.Screening can be effective in cancer control in populations with a significant burden of CRC, provided the services are of high quality [2]. The aim of CRC screening is to lower the burden of cancer in the population by discovering disease in its early, latent stages [3]. Evidence-based methods permit treatment that is more effective than if disease is diagnosed later when symptoms have occurred. Early treatment of invasive lesions, for example by endoscopic resection of early CRC, can also be less detrimental for quality of life. The endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions also reduces the incidence of CRC by avoiding the progression to cancer. Randomized trials in people of average risk invite...

Comparisons among CRC screening programmes should be made cautiously, given differences in organization, target populations, and interpretation of indicators. More meaningful comparisons are possible if rates are calculated across a uniform age range, by gender, and separately for people invited for the first time vs. previously.

No abstract

Arabinosyl cytosine (ara-C), a synthetic pyrimidine nucleoside related to the normal metabolites cytidine and deoxycytidine, has been found capable of producing marrow remission at tolerable doses in acute myelocytic and acute lymphocytic leukemia in adults. There were 16 per cent remissions complete in all aspects, 3 per cent complete except for hemoglobin level, and 6 per cent partial remissions among 180 adults with acute myelocytic leukemia treated with any one of 8 variants of infusion duration or daily dose of ara-C. Twenty-four per cent of 37 adults with acute lymphocytic or unclassified leukemia had complete or partial remissions. The comparison of 1, 4, 12 and 24 hours infusion of ara-C (to total dose tolerated) does not show significant superiority for any one group. The complete remission rate with 1 or 12 hour infusions, however, is 25 per cent (superior to that obtained with 6-mercaptopurine) and the recommended schedule of treatment for ara-C based on these data is, therefore, daily infusions of 100 or 50 mg./m.2 in one hour for approximately 3 to 6 weeks followed by maintenance therapy of once weekly subcutaneous injection of 30 mg./m.2 of ara-C. Platelet transfusions should be available when ara-C is used.

No abstract

Small non-coding RNAs have emerged as possible biomarkers for various diseases including autoimmune diseases. A number of studies have demonstrated that the expression of specific microRNAs (miRNAs) is dysregulated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). So far, all studies on miRNAs in RA patients have been performed using either microarray or reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analyses. Compared to RT-qPCR and microarray analyses, next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows the genome-wide analysis of small RNAs and the differentiation between miRNAs that differ by a single nucleotide. The application of NGS to the analysis of small RNAs circulating in sera of RA patients has not been reported. This study provides a global overview of the circulating small RNAs in the sera of RA patients and healthy subjects and identifies differences between these groups using NGS. Several classes of small RNAs, including hY RNA-derived fragments, tRNA-derived fragments and miRNAs, were determined. Differentially expressed individual small RNAs were verified by RT-qPCR. The levels of two miRNAs, miR-223-3p and miR-16-5p, were significantly lower in the sera from early RA patients than in those from established RA patients and healthy controls. In contrast, the serum level of miR-16-5p was higher in patients with established RA than in healthy control samples. These miRNAs may not only serve as biomarkers, but may also shed more light on the pathophysiology of RA.

Understanding the reasons for nonparticipation in cancer screening may give clues about how to improve compliance. However, limited cooperation has hampered research on nonparticipant profiles. We took advantage of Sweden's comprehensive demographic and health care registers to investigate characteristics of all participants and nonparticipants in a pilot program for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy. A population-based sample of 1986 Swedish residents 59-61 years old was invited. Registers provided information on each individual's gender, country of birth, marital status, education, income, hospital contacts, place of residence, distance to screening center and cancer within the family. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), modeled with multivariable logistic regression, estimated the independent associations between each background factor and the propensity for nonparticipation after control for the effects of other factors. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Being male (OR 5 1.27, 95% CI 5 1.03-1.57, relative to female), unmarried or divorced (OR 5 1.69, 95% CI 5 1.23-2.30 and OR 5 1.49, 95% CI 5 1.14-1.95, respectively, relative to married) and having an income in the lowest tertile (OR 5 1.68, 95% CI 5 1.27-2.23, relative to highest tertile) was associated with increased nonparticipation. Living in the countryside or in small communities and having a documented family history of colorectal cancer was associated with better participation. Distance to the screening center did not significantly affect participation, nor did recent hospital care consumption or immigrant status. To increase compliance, invitations must appeal to men, unmarried or divorced people and people with low socioeconomic status. ' 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Key words: mass screening; colorectal neoplasms; sigmoidoscopy; patient participation; registers To be effective on a population level, screening programs have to be widely accepted. To minimize nonparticipation, it is important to understand the reasons for nonattendance and to identify groups that would benefit from extra recruitment efforts. Further, understanding of selection forces is necessary for valid interpretation of the effects of screening.Investigators of nonparticipation, whether in screening, public health campaigns or scientific investigations typically have to resort to interviews or questionnaires. As the motivation among nonparticipants generally is low, such studies are characterized by low response rates and questionable data quality. For example, in a recently published Norwegian study concerning a colorectal cancer screening program, only 11% of the nonparticipants responded to a follow-up questionnaire. 1 To our knowledge, no comprehensive model explaining nonparticipation in cancer screening has yet gained widespread acceptance. The scarcity of unbiased background information among nonparticipants may have contributed to this lack of a firm conceptual basis for the understanding of underlying mechanisms.We took advantage of 8 national ...

Overall complication rates were acceptable and mortality low; however, the rate of anastomotic leakage after surgery for both adenomas and CRC was higher than expected.