Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Colorectal cancer risk

Nader Al-Hassan
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (528): 539.
Nader Al-Hassan
Gross-Rohrheim, Germany E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: naderalhassan@hotmail.com
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The study by Ellis et al1 in the December 2005 issue of the BJGP, raises several issues ranging from failure to assess the importance of other risk factors associated with colorectal cancer to misleading statistics and incomplete investigations. When evaluating rectal bleeding, it is essential to look at other risk factors such as unexplained anaemia, family history of colorectal cancer and previous history of removal of adenomatous polyps. They mentioned no laboratory investigations.

Colonoscopy should be the diagnostic procedure of choice and gold standard in evaluating the possibility of cancer. There was no mention why 37 patients had barium enema.

In Table 1, page 952, I read in the first row sensitivity 100. This means that all patients presenting with rectal bleeding and change in bowel habit will have colorectal cancer! Page 954 stated that all patients with cancer had an associated change in bowel habit. This is their explanation of 100% sensitivity. Their analysis included 219 patients having flexible sigmoidoscopy and 47 patients filling in a questionnaire. The assessment of a questionnaire will neither exclude nor confirm colorectal pathology. Despite 53 patients declining participation, Tables 1–3 included them in quantifying the ratio of pathology. Their presentation is misleading.

Not every individual with rectal bleeding needs a colonoscopy. But if their aim is to evaluate the diagnostic power of symptoms in the assessment of cancer, then the gold standard colonoscopy should be used. The authors gave no details of duration of various symptoms and no explanation of selection criteria for performing barium enema or colonoscopy.

I read in the second column of page 953 in the last paragraph: ‘As it has been shown that flexible sigmoidoscopy’. Their statement is inaccurate because the flexible sigmoidoscopy to 60 cm would detect the majority of colorectal cancer. It will miss 20–30% of significant proximal neoplasms2 leading to missed diagnosis, false reassurance, progression of the disease, suffering and death. I am concerned about the method of recruiting patients to the study offering three options: flexible sigmoidoscopy; if not accepted postal questionnaire; or neither. A consultation should be offered without the obligation to participate in the study.

The authors stated that physical examination was carried out at the time of flexible sigmoidoscopy. This means that 47 patients filling the questionnaire and 53 declining flexible sigmoidoscopy and a questionnaire had no clinical examination. If patients decline a procedure, you still have the duty to offer them alternative options such as clinical examination, laboratory investigations and follow up after a reasonable time. This paper adds nothing new to the various guidelines on criteria for high risk of bowel cancer.

Notes

Competing interests

The author has stated that there are none.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Ellis BG,
    2. Thompson MR
    (2005) Factors identifying higher risk rectal bleeding in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 55:949–955.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. McQuaid KR
    (2001) Current medical diagnosis and treatment (Lange Medical Books, New York), 40th edn, pp 651–656.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (528)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 528
July 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Colorectal cancer risk
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Colorectal cancer risk
Nader Al-Hassan
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (528): 539.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Colorectal cancer risk
Nader Al-Hassan
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (528): 539.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242