Colon and Rectal Cancers - Diagnosis

(Page 5)

• The procedure uses a flexible fiberoptic tube (it is thus referred to as flexible sigmoidoscopy) that contains a tiny camera and surgical instruments.
• It lasts about 10 minutes and may be mildly uncomfortable, but it is not painful and is generally very safe. In one study, 70% of patients reported that the procedure was far less unpleasant than they had expected.

This procedure has been found to reduce the risk of fatal cancers in the rectal and sigmoid area by 60%. If polyps are detected, a colonoscopy is then used.

Colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is the most accurate testing method and can reduce cancer incidence by up to 90%. It is clearly indicated for anyone with an increased risk for colorectal cancer, including those with a personal or family history of the disease. As with sigmoidoscopy, a colonoscopy uses a flexible tube, but it is snaked through the entire large intestine.

---

---

• For about a day before the procedure the patient eats nothing and drinks a laxative solution that cleans out the colon. The taste of the solution is unpleasant, although it has improved in recent years.
• The procedure typically uses a sedative that produces a "twilight" sleep and often makes the procedure more comfortable than sigmoidoscopy.
• Air may be introduced into the intestine to widen it and allow the tube to navigate curves. A colonoscopy avoids the risk of radiation associated with a barium enema, but it is important to note that even a colonoscopy does not detect all cancers.

Complications are rare, but include the following:

• Hyponatremia. Hyponatremia is a low concentration of sodium in the blood. The complication may be caused by the effects of bowel cleaning before the procedure that can result in water retention and reductions in sodium. When severe, it can cause temporary neurological symptoms, such as confusion, lethargy, unsteadiness, and slurred speech. Researchers suggest that sodium concentrations be measured in patients who develop such symptoms after colonoscopy.
• Bowel perforation (very low risk, about 2 cases per 1,000 procedures).

Barium Enema. The double-contrast barium enema, which uses an x-ray image, is the less expensive alternative for viewing the entire colon. It is not as accurate as colonoscopy, and if any polyps or abnormalities are revealed on x-ray, a colonoscopy is then required to remove suspicious tissue, so it is now recommended much less often than in the past.

Genetic Screening

Screening for FAP. Genetic screening for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) is now available and may be recommended for high-risk patients. The test for FAP detects a mutation in the APC (adenomatous polyposis coli) in up to 90% of people who carry it. Testing for HNPCC mutation is somewhat more complex.

Screening for ICF-2. A gene that regulates insulin-like growth factor (IGF-2) is functional during fetal development and then becomes inactive. Some evidence now suggests that people who have IGF-2 in adulthood have a higher risk for colon cancer. Blood tests for detecting IGF-2, then, may be helpful in identifying patients who should have more intensive screening. Currently, however, this is only used as a research tool.

Stool DNA Testing.A promising technique for colorectal cancer screening is the detection of altered DNA in cancer cells that have shed from the colon and are excreted in the stool. Such tests may prove to detect both inherited and noninherited genetic mutations. This may become a widely used tool in the future. However, larger clinical studies are needed.

Experimental Screening and Diagnostic Methods

Virtual Colonoscopy. A promising experimental technique called virtual colonoscopy allows three-dimensional imaging of the colon without using invasive instruments. As with standard colonoscopy, the patient takes a laxative first to clear out the intestine. The procedure itself involves pumping air into the colon and scanning the intestine using computed tomography (CT). It is very safe and takes about only10 minutes. The procedure is similar in accuracy to conventional colonoscopy for detection of larger polyps (6 mm or more in diameter) and is also potentially less expensive. Colonoscopy is required, however, if suspicious areas are found, which may occur frequently with the CT procedure, since it erroneously identifies a high number of nonexistent polyps.

A study published in April 2004 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) compared results of standard colonoscopy versus virtual colonoscopy in over 600 patients at nine major medical centers. Virtual colonoscopy had much lower rates of successfully finding polyps than standard colonoscopy. Virtual colonoscopy detected polyps of at least 6 mm in 39% of patients and polyps of at least 10 mm in 55% of patients. By contrast, standard colonoscopy detected 99% of polyps of at least 6 mm, and 100% of polyps of at least 10 mm. In addition, accuracy rates varied widely among the different hospitals. The authors advised that until more improvement in training and technique is achieved, virtual colonoscopy "is not yet ready for widespread clinical application."

Magnetic Resonance Colonography (MRC). Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) is another non-invasive technique for visualizing the colon. The patient receives an enema containing a contrast substance, and then magnetic resonance images are taken. MRC is fast, comfortable, and less invasive than colonoscopy. Currently, however, there is a poor detection rate for flat tumors and for polyp tumors less than 10 mm in diameter.

Encapsulated Video Camera. Researchers have developed a video camera that is small enough to be swallowed. It works its way through the digestive tract, beaming data to a receiver worn on the patient's waist, and is excreted in 8 - 72 hours. The camera was not designed to replace standard visualization procedures and is currently being used to assess problems in the hard-to-reach small intestine. More testing is needed to determine whether it has value in colon cancer screening.

Review Date: 03/06/2007
Reviewed By: A.D.A.M. Editorial Team: Greg Juhn, M.T.P.W., David R. Eltz, Kelli A. Stacy. Previously reviewed by Harvey Simon, M.D., Editor-in-Chief, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital (9/1/2006).