Journal Information
Vol. 80. Issue 4.
Pages 239-247 (October - December 2015)
Vol. 80. Issue 4.
Pages 239-247 (October - December 2015)
Original article
Open Access
Factors related to advanced colorectal neoplasm at the Policlínico Peruano Japonés
Factores relacionados a neoplasia avanzada colorrectal en el Policlínico Peruano Japonés
V. Parra-Péreza,
Corresponding author

Corresponding author. Jr. Colmenares N.° 281, Pueblo Libre (L21), Lima, Perú. Phone: +987720981; fax: +2042126.
, J. Watanabe-Yamamotoa, A. Nago-Nagoa, M. Astete-Benavidesa, C. Rodríguez-Ulloaa, G. Valladares-Álvareza, N. Núñez-Calixtoa, M. Yoza-Yoshidairaa, T. Gargurevich-Sáncheza, J. Pinto-Sáncheza, J. Niebuhr-Kakiuchia, G. Uehara-Miyagusukua, J. Rodríguez-Grandeza, R. Komazona-Sugajaraa, C.F. Gutiérrez de Arangurenb
a Servicio de Gastroenterología, Policlínico Peruano Japonés, Lima, Perú
b Servicio de Gastroenterología, Clínica Centenario Peruano Japonés, Lima, Perú
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Full Text
Download PDF
Figures (1)
Tables (6)
Table 1. Types of colonic neoplasia findings in the colonoscopies.
Table 2. Factors related to the univariate analysis-AN.
Table 3. Factors related to the multivariate analysis-AN.
Table 4. Risk for PAN according to distal findings (n = 822).
Table 5. Factors related to the univariate analysis-PAN.
Table 6. Factors related to the multivariate analysis-PAN.
Show moreShow less

Identifying persons at high risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia can aid in the prevention of colon cancer. Previous studies have shown that some patients can present with proximal advanced neoplasia with no distal findings.


To determine the factors related to advanced neoplasia and advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia in a Latin American population.

Material and methods

A prospective, cross-sectional, observational, analytic study was conducted. It included patients that underwent colonoscopy at the Policlínico Peruano Japonés within the time frame of January and July 2012. Advanced neoplasia was defined as the presence of lesions ≥ 10mm with a villous component, high-grade dysplasia, or carcinoma. The splenic flexure was the limit between the proximal and distal colon.


A total of 846 patients were included in the study. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 108 patients (12.8%) and advanced proximal neoplasia in 55 patients (6.7%), 42 (76.4%) of whom had no neoplasia in the distal colon. Factors related to advanced neoplasia found in the multivariate analysis were age, at the intervals of 50-59 (p=0.019), 60-69 (p=0.016), and ≥ 70 years (0.002) and male sex (p=0.003). In the evaluation of advanced proximal neoplasia, the multivariate analysis identified the 60-69 year age interval (p=0.039) and advanced distal neoplasia (p=0.028) as factors related to advanced proximal disease. The ROC curve established the age cut-off point at 60 years for initially performing colonoscopy, rather than sigmoidoscopy.


Age and sex are related to advanced neoplasia, whereas age and advanced distal neoplasia are related to advanced proximal neoplasia.

Colorectal neoplasia
Colorectal cancer

Identificar personas con alto riesgo de neoplasia avanzada colorrectal puede ayudar en la prevención de cáncer de colon. Por otro lado, estudios previos han observado que algunos pacientes pueden tener neoplasia avanzada proximal sin hallazgos distales.


Determinar los factores relacionados a neoplasia avanzada y neoplasia avanzada proximal colorrectal en una población latinoamericana.

Material y métodos

Estudio analítico, observacional, transversal y prospectivo. Se incluyó a pacientes sometidos a colonoscopia en el Policlínico Peruano Japonés entre enero y julio del 2012. Se definió neoplasia avanzada como la presencia de lesiones ≥ 10mm en tamaño, con componente velloso o displasia de alto grado o carcinoma. El límite entre el colon proximal y distal fue el ángulo esplénico.


Se incluyó a 846 pacientes. Se detectó neoplasia avanzada en 108 pacientes (12.8%). Se detectó neoplasia avanzada proximal en 55 pacientes (6.7%), de los cuales 42 (76.4%) tuvieron el colon distal sin neoplasias. El análisis multivariado encontró como factores relacionados a neoplasia avanzada a la edad, en intervalos 50-59 (p=0.019), 60-69 (p=0.016) y ≥ 70 años (0.002) y el género masculino (p=0.003). Al evaluar neoplasia avanzada proximal, el análisis multivariado encontró a la edad en intervalo de 60-69 años (p=0.039) y la neoplasia avanzada distal (p=0.028) como relacionados. La curva ROC estableció un corte de edad de 60 años para realizar colonoscopia de inicio en lugar de sigmoidoscopia.


La edad y el género están relacionados con neoplasia avanzada, mientras que la edad y la neoplasia avanzada distal están relacionadas a neoplasia avanzada proximal

Palabras clave:
Neoplasia colorrectal
Cáncer colorrectal
Full Text

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and the second most common in women worldwide, with more than 1.2 million new cases and more than 600,000 deaths annually.1

Colorectal cancer screening in the general population can reduce the colorectal cancer mortality rate. The international guidelines recommend this screening from the age of 50 years, through tests such as fecal occult blood, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.2 However, these recommendations are not always observed. One of the main barriers to screening is the lack of risk perceived by the patients and even by the primary care physicians.3,4 The risk for colorectal cancer or advanced neoplasia (AN) in general, varies according to several factors, including age,5–9 sex,6–10 a family history of colon cancer,6,8,9,11 tobacco smoking,8,9,12,13 obesity,7,9,14 diabetes mellitus,15 etc. Information on these factors is easy to obtain and could be used to identify those patients at high risk for AN that would benefit most from screening.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a simple screening method for colorectal cancer. Not only does it reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer, but it reduces the mortality rate, as well. A large randomized study reported that sigmoidoscopy alone, performed in patients between the ages of 55 and 64 years, reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer by 33% and the colorectal cancer mortality rate by 43% during a mean 11.2-year follow-up period.16 The addition of a yearly fecal occult blood test to sigmoidoscopy has been reported to have little or no benefit.17,18 To the contrary, it can reduce screening participation.19,20

Nevertheless, despite the strong evidence of the clinical benefits of sigmoidoscopy, this procedure does not enable proximal colon evaluation. A complementary colonoscopy must be performed if the sigmoidoscopy result indicates the presence of distal neoplasia, especially if it is greater than 1cm, if it has a villous histology, or if there are multiple neoplasia, given that these are risk factors for proximal advanced neoplasia (PAN).5,21–27 The prevalence of PAN varies between 1.7 and 5.4%, according to published studies.5,22,23,27,28 However, 60 to 70% of the patients with PAN do not present with distal neoplasia.5,22,29–31 Therefore, these patients with PAN could go undetected if colonoscopy is performed based solely on the previous sigmoidoscopy findings. Ideally, proximal colon examination should be selectively carried out on patients at high risk for PAN, based on a stronger predictive model that includes sigmoidoscopy findings and clinical risk factors. However, there have been few studies on this subject.21,23,25,29,30,32,33 The aim of our study was to determine the factors related to colorectal AN and PAN.


This is an analytic, observational, cross-sectional, prospective study and was approved by the Office of Training, Research and Teaching of the Policlínico Peruano Japonés. It included all the outpatients that underwent colonoscopy at the Gastroenterology Service of the Policlínico Peruano Japonés within the time frame of January to July 2012. The Policlínico Peruano Japonés is a private institution and the majority of its patients are outpatients. A total of 14 experienced gastroenterologists performed the procedures. The colonoscopies were carried out with Olympus equipment, models CF-H 180, CF-Q 160 ZL, CF-H 150, and CF-Q 150 and Fujinon equipment, model EC-590 WL. All the procedures were recorded and archived. Patients under the age of 16 years and those that did not have an anatomopathologic study were excluded. All the patients received verbal and written instructions for intestinal preparation and the divided dose system was used for all the procedures. The colon cleansing preparations used were polyethylene glycol (PEG) in its presentation of envelopes containing 105g of PEG 3350 and sodium phosphate (in 45ml bottles that contained 48g of monobasic sodium phosphate and 18g of dibasic sodium phosphate per each 100ml). If the examination was to be performed in the morning, the patient was instructed to take 3 PEG envelopes the night before and one in the morning, or one bottle of sodium phosphate the night before and another in the morning. If the examination was in the afternoon, the patient was instructed to take 2 PEG envelopes the night before and 2 envelopes the morning of the exam or one bottle of sodium phosphate the night before and another bottle the morning of the exam.

Before the procedure, the patients were interviewed and the following information was collected:

  • 1.

    Demographic data: age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), and educational level.

  • 2.

    Personal medical history, including past medical history (diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular disorder, cirrhosis, antidepressive/anti-anxiety drug use, current tobacco smoker, number of bowel movements per week, abdominal surgery, a history of prior colonoscopy, polyps, or colon cancer, and a family history of colon cancer).

  • 3.

    Colonoscopy indication: for diagnostic purposes (patient with symptoms such as abdominal pain, hematochezia, rectorrhagia, chronic diarrhea, constipation, or anemia in study), screening or follow-up (post-polypectomy or surgical resection for colon cancer).

  • 4.

    Bowel preparation characteristics: the use of PEG or sodium phosphate and the addition of a laxative.

  • 5.

    Adverse effects experienced during the preparation: nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, anal irritation, or sleep disorder.

Data on the following colonoscopy-related variables were collected during the procedure: the time at which the study was begun, withdrawal time, findings, and bowel preparation quality. The time of colonoscopy was classified as “morning” if it was performed between 08:00 am and 11:59 am or “afternoon” if it was performed between 12:00 pm and 06:00 pm. Bowel preparation quality was registered by the endoscopist in charge of the procedure and categorized as excellent (adequate visualization of the entire colon with no washout or suction), good (adequate visualization of more than 90% of the colon with clear fluids requiring minimum suction and minimum or no washout), regular (unsatisfactory visualization of all or part or the colon with dark fluid and liquid feces that required suction and washout), and poor (unsatisfactory visualization of all or part of the colon, with dark fluid and feces requiring suction and washout and the need to consider re-examination) based on the predefined Aronchick scale.34,35 For the purposes of our study we redefined the level of preparation as “optimum” (excellent or good) or “suboptimum” (regular or poor). If elevated lesions were found, the corresponding histopathologic report was obtained after the procedure.

Conventional colonoscopy was performed by experienced gastroenterologists. Complete colonoscopy was considered when the colonoscope reached the cecum. During the colonoscopy, the location and size of all the polyps were determined before their removal. Size was measured comparing the lesion with the open biopsy forceps or based on clinical judgment. Lesion location was determined by the clinical judgment of the gastroenterologist.

The splenic flexure was established as the limit between the proximal and distal colon.22,23,29,31,36,37 The definition of AN was the presence of lesions larger than 10mm with a villous component or with high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma.8,23,29,37 Cancer was defined as the invasion of malignant cells under the muscularis mucosae.31 For purposes of the analysis, traditional serrated adenomas, serrated sessile lesions, and mixed serrated polyps were categorized as tubular adenomas.9 Polyps under 10mm that were not extirpated, were regarded as non-neoplastic.9 If the patient had more than one lesion, whether in the proximal or distal colon, the more advanced lesion was the one classified.

Data were reported as absolute and relative frequencies for discrete or nominal variables, and as means, standard deviation (SD), and range for the continuous variables. These data were analyzed using the SPSS version 16.0 statistical package and the tables were constructed using the Excel program. The variables were crossed by means of 2 x 2 tables. Each variable was studied for its association with the presence of AN and PAN. The chi-square test or Fisher exact test were used for the categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for the continuous variables. Age was evaluated as a continuous and categorical variable (< 40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and ≥ 70). BMI was categorized as ≥ 30 (obese) and < 30 (not obese). The variables that were significantly associated with AN and PAN in the univariate analysis then underwent multivariate analysis using logistic regression.

The patients that had incomplete colonoscopy were excluded from the analysis of risk factors for PAN.


A total of 846 colonoscopies that fit the inclusion criteria were performed during the study period. The mean age was 57.67 years (SD ± 14.77), 71.6% of the patients were above 50 years of age, and 64.9% were women. A total of 119 (14.1%) of the patients were obese (BMI ≥ 30). The most frequent indication for the examination was for diagnostic purposes (59.1%). A total of 112 (13.2%) patients had a family history of colon cancer and 291 (34.4%) had undergone previous colonoscopy. Of the 846 colonoscopies performed, the cecum was reached in 822 (97.1%). In 54.1% of the colonoscopies, the withdrawal time was greater than or equal to 6min. In 6 colonoscopies, polyps under 10mm that had a hyperplastic aspect and were located in the rectum were not removed at the discretion of the endoscopist.

Some type of colonic neoplasia was detected during colonoscopy in 243 (28.7%) patients, 223 (26.4%) of which corresponded to adenomas and 20 (2.4%) to cancer. A total of 108 (12.8%) patients presented with AN (Table 1).

Table 1.

Types of colonic neoplasia findings in the colonoscopies.

Colonic neoplasia  No. 
Adenoma  223  26.4 
AN  108  12.8 
Cancer  20  2.4 

AN: advanced neoplasia.

Factors related to AN through the univariate analysis in the total number of patients were age (p = 0.002) and male sex (p = 0.012) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Factors related to the univariate analysis-AN.

Characteristics  Patient total No.=846  AN
    Yes  No 
Age, years ± SD  57.67 ± 14.77  63.69 ± 13.20  56.79 ± 14.79  0.000c 
Age, n (%)        0.002b 
< 40  102 (12.1)  5 (4.6)  97 (13.1)   
40-49  138 (16.3)  9 (8.3)  129 (17.5)   
50-59  199 (23.5)  28 (25.9)  171 (23.2)   
60-69  213 (25.2)  30 (27.8)  183 (24.8)   
≥ 70  194 (22.9)  36 (33.4)  158 (21.4)   
Sex, n (%)
Men  297 (35.1)  50 (46.3)  247 (33.5)  0.012a 
Women  549 (64.9)  58 (53.7)  491 (66.5)   
BMI, mean ± SD  26.02 ± 4.02  26.13 ± 3.75  26.00 ± 4.06  0.629c 
BMI ≥ 30, n (%)  119 (14.1)  15 (13.9)  104 (14.1)  1.000a 
BMI < 30, n (%)  727 (85.9)  93 (86.1)  634 (85.9)   
Time of the examination, n (%)
“Morning”  350 (41.4)  43 (39.8)  307 (41.6)  0.805a 
“Afternoon”  496 (58.6)  65 (60.2)  431 (58.4)   
Current tobacco smoking, n (%)  330 (39.0)  51 (47.2)  279 (37.8)  0.077a 
Personal history of polyps, n (%)  101 (11.9)  14 (13.0)  87 (11.8)  0.847a 
Previous colonoscopy, n (%)  291 (34.4)  36 (33.3)  255 (34.6)  0.888a 
Family history of colon cancer, n (%)  112 (13.2)  19 (17.6)  93 (12.6)  0.201a 
Diabetes Mellitus, n (%)  62 (7.3)  9 (8.3)  53 (7.2)  0.817a 
Bowel movements per week, n (%)
1-3  67 (7.9)  6 (5.6)  61 (8.3)  0.620b 
4-6  155 (18.3)  20 (18.5)  135 (18.3)   
7 or more  624 (73.8)  82 (75.9)  542 (73.4)   
Enema received, n (%)
Polyethylene glycol  770 (91.0)  98 (90.7)  672 (91.1)  1.000a 
Sodium phosphate  76 (9.0)  10 (9.3)  66 (8.9)   
Quality of bowel preparation, n (%)
Optimum  405 (47.9)  47 (43.5)  358 (48.5)  0.386a 
Suboptimum  441 (52.1)  61 (56.5)  380 (51.5)   
Colonoscopy indication, n (%)
Diagnostic  500 (59.1)  61 (56.5)  439 (59.5)  0.297b 
Screening  257 (30.4)  31 (28.7)  226 (30.6)   
Follow-up  89 (10.5)  16 (14.8)  73 (9.9)   

AN: advanced neoplasia; SD: standard deviation.


Chi-square test with the Yates correction.


Pearson chi-square test.


Mann-Whitney U test.

The multivariate analysis confirmed a statistically significant association of age in the ranges of 50-59 (p = 0.019), 60-69 (p = 0.016), and ≥ 70 years (p = 0.002), as well as in the male sex (p = 0.003) (Table 3) with AN.

Table 3.

Factors related to the multivariate analysis-AN.

  OR  95% CI 
Age, years
< 40  1.000 
40-49  1.283  0.415-3.964  0.665 
50-59  3.264  1.216-8.758  0.019 
60-69  3.330  1.247-8.890  0.016 
≥ 70  4.698  1.775-12.436  0.002 
Men  1.898  1.252-2.878  0.003 
Women  1.000 

AN: advanced neoplasia.

Of the 822 patients that had complete examination of the colon, 99 (12.0%) presented with AN. Of those patients, 55 presented with PAN. Of the PAN group, 42 (76.4%) had no neoplastic lesion in the distal colon. Despite this fact, findings in the distal colon can predict the presence of PAN (Table 4). The presence of ≥ 3 distal non-advanced neoplasias or distal AN increased the risk for PAN almost 2.5-fold. The univariate analysis found age (p = 0.047) and the presence of distal AN (p = 0.018) as significant factors related to the presence of PAN (Table 5). The multivariate analysis confirmed the significant association of age at the interval of 60-69 years (p = 0.039) and the presence of distal AN (p=0.028), with the presence of PAN (Table 6). The ROC curve generated from age and the presence of PAN (fig. 1) showed an area under the curve of 0.621 and the cut-off point of 60 years was the one that best distinguished the need for initial colonoscopy rather than sigmoidoscopy.

Table 4.

Risk for PAN according to distal findings (n = 822).

Distal findings  No. of patients  PAN = 55OR (95% CI) 
    No. of patients   
No distal neoplasia  692  42  6.1  Reference 
1-2 distal non-advanced neoplasias  73  6.8  1.028 (0.397-2.664) 
≥ 3 distal non-advanced neoplasias or some distal AN  57  14.0  2.494 (1.117-5.570) 
Distal AN  52  15.4  2.797 (1.245-6.281) 

AN: advanced neoplasia; PAN: proximal advanced neoplasia.

Table 5.

Factors related to the univariate analysis-PAN.

Characteristics  Patients with cecal intubation N = 822  PAN
    Yes  No 
Age, years ± SD  57.39 ± 14.67  63,29 ± 11.93  56.96 ± 14.77  0.003d 
Age, n (%)        0.047c 
< 40  101 (12.3)  2 (3.6)  99 (12.9)   
40-49  136 (16.5)  4 (7.3)  132 (17.2)   
50-59  195 (23.7)  15 (27.3)  180 (23.5)   
60-69  208 (25.3)  19 (34.5)  189 (24.6)   
≥ 70  182 (22.1)  15 (27.3)  167 (21.8)   
Sex, n (%)
Women  532 (64.7)  31 (56.4)  501 (65.3)  0.231a 
Men  290 (35.3)  24 (43.6)  266 (34.7)   
BMI mean ± SD  26.02 ± 3.99  26.56 ± 3.82  25.98 ± 4.01  0.243a 
BMI ≥ 30, n (%)  114 (13.9)  8 (14.5)  106 (13.8)  1.00a 
BMI < 30, n (%)  708 (86.1)  47 (85.5)  661 (86.2)   
Time of the examination, n (%)
“Morning”  342 (41.6)  21 (38.2)  321 (48.9)  0.695a 
“Afternoon”  480 (58.4)  34 (61.8)  446 (51.1)   
Current tobacco smoking, n (%)  317 (38.6)  26 (47.3)  291 (37.9)  0.219a 
Personal history of polyps, n (%)  100 (12.2)  9 (16.4)  91 (11.9)  0.440a 
Previous colonoscopy, n (%)  284 (34.5)  23 (41.8)  261 (34.0)  0.305a 
Family history of colon cancer, n (%)  109 (13.3)  11 (20.0)  98 (12.8)  0.187a 
Diabetes mellitus, n (%)  58 (7.1)  4 (7.3)  54 (7.0)  1.000b 
Bowel movements per week, n (%)
1-3  66 (8.0)  2 (3.6)  64 (8.3)  0.381c 
4-6  153 (18.6)  9 (16.4)  144 (18.8)   
7 or more  603 (73.4)  44 (80.0)  559 (72.9)   
Enema received, n (%)
Polyethylene glycol  750 (91.2)  51 (92.7)  699 (91.1)  1.000b 
Sodium phosphate  72 (8.8)  4 (7.3)  68 (8.9)   
Quality of bowel preparation, n (%)
Optimum  395 (48.1)  26 (47.3)  369 (48.1)  1.000a 
Suboptimum  427 (51.9)  29 (52.7)  398 (51.9)   
Colonoscopy indication, n (%)
Diagnostic  489 (59.5)  30 (54.5)  459 (59.8)  0.120c 
Screening  250 (30.4)  15 (27.3)  235 (30.6)   
Follow-up  83 (10.1)  10 (18.2)  73 (9.5)   
Presence of distal AN, n %  52 (6.3)  8 (14.5)  44 (5.7)  0.018b 

AN: advanced neoplasia; PAN: proximal advanced neoplasia; SD: standard deviation.


Chi-square test with the Yates correction.


Fisher exact test.


Pearson chi-square test.


Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 6.

Factors related to the multivariate analysis-PAN.

  OR  95% CI 
Age, years
< 40  1.000 
40-49  1.486  0.267-8.287  0.651 
50-59  3.920  0.876-17.533  0.074 
60-69  4.762  1.085-20.903  0.039 
≥ 70  4.143  0.925-18.565  0.063 
Presence of distal AN  2.499  0.742-3.884  0.028 

AN: advanced neoplasia; PAN: proximal advanced neoplasia.

Figure 1.

ROC curve defining an optimal age cut-off point for distinguishing patients requiring initial colonoscopy based on risk for PAN. The area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values are shown,

CI: confidence interval.


Our study confirmed the results of previous analyses that showed age and male sex as factors associated with AN.

We preferred to evaluate AN rather than cancer, given that previous studies suggested that this was a more adequate aim in relation to colonoscopy screening.5–10,13,28 Nevertheless, some predictive models exclusively for cancer38–40 have previously been developed and both cancer and AN are important study aims for colon cancer screening that will enable the colorectal cancer mortality rate to be reduced. Early colorectal cancer detection and treatment are associated with reduced colorectal cancer mortality,9 but detection and removal of adenomas, especially those that are advanced, are also associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence.41,42

Age and sex were found to be important risk factors for the development of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Men have almost double the risk for developing advanced neoplasia, compared with women. There was also a significant association between age and advanced neoplasia. Patients above the age of 70 years, in particular, have a 4-fold greater risk compared with those under 40 years of age. Greater colorectal neoplasia prevalence associated with age has been observed in previous studies.13,26 Other factors, such as a family history of colorectal cancer, tobacco smoking, and BMI were not related to advanced colorectal neoplasia in our study, unlike that reported by Kaminski et al.9

Flexible sigmoidoscopy is generally well-tolerated, easy to perform, safe and economic.16 Thus, sigmoidoscopy is an adequate initial large-scale screening test for colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, sigmoidoscopy cannot evaluate the proximal colon and therefore studies have been conducted to identify factors related to proximal neoplasia that could be used to identify patients that would need complementary colonoscopy. Findings in the distal colon (large neoplasms or histologically advanced neoplasia) have been identified as risk factors for PAN, along with some clinical characteristics (age, male sex, obesity, alcohol ingestion or tobacco smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer).21–23,27,29–33,37

We also evaluated factors related to PAN. For that analysis, only the colonoscopies in which cecal intubation was achieved were taken into account.31 Age and the presence of distal AN were found to be related, but not sex. In regard to age, it was preferable for initial colonoscopy to be performed, rather than sigmoidoscopy, in patients above the age of 60 years, due to the high risk for finding PAN in that group of patients. With respect to distal AN, there was a 2.5-fold increased risk. This concurred with the findings of Leung et al.,31 who found a 3.9-fold risk increase in that group of patients. Other findings in the distal colon, such as non-advanced neoplasias, were not statistically significant in relation to PAN, which perhaps was due to the small size of our study sample.

In the present study, 6.1% of the patients with no neoplasia in the distal colon presented with PAN. Alternatively, 76.4% of the patients with proximal advanced lesion had no neoplasia in the distal colon. These results are related to those of previous reports.13,22,29,31,32 It can be deduced from these findings that three-quarters of advanced colonic lesions could be missed in sigmoidoscopy, if colonoscopy were not performed in patients presenting with no neoplasia in the distal colon.

Our definition of AN was the same as that used in the majority of the previous studies, and it included adenomas > 1cm.5,9,13,25,26,29–31,33,37 Given that polyp size determination can be subject to wide interobserver variability, a more rigorous definition without considering size, such as that proposed by Imperiale et al.,22 could prevent such a discrepancy. Therefore our AN detection rate can be different, when compared with that of Imperiale.

Among the limitations of our study is the small sample size. This was probably the reason that no other risk factors for advanced neoplasia were identified, such as a family history of colon cancer, tobacco smoking, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, we did not take other risk factors into account, such as aspirin use. Likewise, our risk factors only predicted advanced neoplasia detection at the time of evaluation, and not the future risk for developing advanced colorectal neoplasia or death from colorectal cancer. In addition, like Dodou and Winter24 and Chung et al.,25 we considered both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, which can distort the comparisons with other studies that only evaluated patients for screening5–9,13,21–23,29,30,33,37 or symptomatic patients.31,36

In conclusion, our study found that age and sex were related to the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasia, and that age and distal AN were related to PAN. In particular, patients above the age of 60 years would require initial colonoscopy, as opposed to sigmoidoscopy for colon evaluation. Future studies with larger samples are necessary in order to find other related factors and to establish a score for identifying individuals at high risk for presenting with advanced colorectal neoplasia.

Ethical responsibilitiesProtection of persons and animals

The authors declare that no experiments were performed on humans or animals for this study.

Data confidentiality

The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article.

Right to privacy and informed consent

The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article.

Financial disclosure

No financial support was received in relation to this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.


The authors wish to thank Felix Armando Barrientos-Achata for his help with the statistical analysis.

A. Jemal, F. Bray, M.M. Center, et al.
Global cáncer statistics.
CA Cancer J Clin, 61 (2011), pp. 69-70
D.K. Rex, D.A. Johnson, J.C. Anderson, et al.
American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008.
Am J Gastroenterol, 104 (2009), pp. 739-750
S.W. Vernon.
Participation in colorectal cancer screening: A review.
J Natl Cancer Inst, 89 (1997), pp. 1406-1422
C.N. Klabunde, S.W. Vernon, M.R. Nadel, et al.
Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults.
Med Care, 43 (2005), pp. 939-944
D.A. Lieberman, D.G. Weiss, J.H. Bond, et al.
Use of colonoscopy to screen asyntomatic adults for colorectal cancer Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.
N Engl J Med, 343 (2000), pp. 162-168
J. Regula, M. Rupinski, E. Kraszewska, et al.
Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia.
N Engl J Med, 355 (2006), pp. 1863-1872
M. Betes, M.A. Munoz-Navas, J.M. Duque, et al.
Use of colonoscopy as a primary screening test for colorectal cáncer in average risk people.
Am J Gastroenterol, 98 (2003), pp. 2648-2654
S. Tao, M. Hoffmeister, H. Brenner.
Development and validation of a scoring system to identify individuals at high risk for advanced colorectal neoplasms who should undergo colonoscopy screening.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 12 (2014), pp. 478-485
M.F. Kaminski, M. Polkowski, E. Kraszewska, et al.
A score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy.
S.P. Nguyen, S. Bent, Y.-H. Chen, et al.
Gender as a risk factor for advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 7 (2009), pp. 676-681
D.P. Taylor, R.W. Burt, M.S. Williams, et al.
Population-based family history-specific risks for colorectal cancer: A constellation approach.
Gastroenterology, 138 (2010), pp. 877-885
E. Botteri, S. Iodice, S. Raimondi, et al.
Cigarette smoking and adenomatous polyps: A meta-analysis.
Gastroenterology, 134 (2008), pp. 388-395
D.A. Lieberman, S. Prindiville, D.G. Weiss, et al.
Risk factors for advanced colonic neoplasia and hyperplasic polyps in asymptomatic individuals.
JAMA, 290 (2003), pp. 2959-2967
M.B. Terry, A.I. Neugut, R.M. Bostick, et al.
Risk factors for advanced colorectal adenomas: A pooled analysis.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 11 (2002), pp. 622-629
S.C. Larsson, N. Orsini, A. Wolk.
Diabetes mellitus and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.
J Natl Cancer Inst, 97 (2005), pp. 1679-1687
W.S. Atkin, R. Edwards, I. Kralj-Hans, et al.
Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomized controlled trial.
Lancet, 375 (2010), pp. 1624-1633
I. Lansdorp-Vogelaar, L. von Karsa.
European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Firs edition.
Endoscopy, 44 (2012), pp. SE15-SE30
R.E. Dávila, E. Rajan, T.H. Baron, et al.
ASGE guideline: Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.
Gastrointest Endosc, 63 (2006), pp. 546-557
D.P. Berry, P. Clarke, J.D. Hardcastle, et al.
Randomized trial of the addition of flexible sigmoidoscopy to faecal occult blood testing for colorectal neoplasia population screening.
Br J Surg, 84 (1997), pp. 1274-1276
M. Rasmussen, O. Kronborg, C. Fenger, et al.
Possible advantages and drawbacks of adding flexible sigmoidoscopy to hemoccult-ii in screening for colorectal cáncer. A randomized study.
Scand J Gastroenterol, 34 (1999), pp. 73-78
T.R. Levin, A. Palitz, S. Grossman, et al.
Predicting advanced proximal colonic neoplasia with screening sigmoidoscopy.
JAMA, 281 (1999), pp. 1611-1617
T.F. Imperiale, D.R. Wagner, C.H.Y. Lin, et al.
Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings.
N Engl J Med, 343 (2000), pp. 169-174
T.F. Imperiale, E.A. Glowinski, Lin-Cooper Ch, et al.
Tailoring colorectal cancer screening by considering risk of advanced proximal neoplasia.
Am J Med, 125 (2012), pp. 1181-1187
D. Dodou, J.C.F. de Winter.
The relationship between distal and proximal colonic neoplasia: A meta-analysis.
J Gen Intern Med, 27 (2011), pp. 361-370
Y.W. Chung, D.S. Han, Y.K. Park, et al.
Risk of advanced proximal adenoma and cancer according to rectosigmoid findings in the Korean population.
Dig Dis Sci, 51 (2006), pp. 2206-2212
L. Erdem, N. Akbayir, S. Yildirim, et al.
Predictive value of morphologic characteristics in rectosigmoid adenomatous polyps for the probability of synchronous polyps or cancer in the proximal colon.
Turk J Gastroenterol, 16 (2005), pp. 207-211
A. Ruco, D. Stock, R.J. Hilsden, et al.
Evaluation of a risk index for advanced proximal neoplasia of the colon.
GIE, (2015),
K.G. Yeoh, K.Y. Ho, H.M. Chiu, et al.
The Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score: A validated tool that stratifies risk for colorectal advanced neoplasia in asymptomatic Asian subjects.
Gut, 60 (2011), pp. 1236-1241
M. Betes, M.A. Muñoz-Navas, J.M. Duque, et al.
Diagnostic value of distal colonic polyps for prediction of advanced proximal neoplasia in an average-risk population undergoing screening colonoscopy.
Gastrointest Endosc, 59 (2004), pp. 634-641
H.W. Park, S. Han, J-S. Lee, et al.
Risk stratification for advanced proximal colon neoplasm and individualized endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer by a risk-scoring model.
Gastrointest Endosc, 76 (2012), pp. 818-828
W.K. Leung, K.Y. Ho, W-H. Kim, et al.
Colorectal neoplasia in Asia: A multicenter colonoscopy survey in symptomatic patients.
Gastrointest Endosc, 64 (2006), pp. 751-759
J.C. Anderson, Z. Alpern, C.R. Messina, et al.
Predictors of proximal neoplasia in patients without distal adenomatous pathology.
Am J Gastroenterol, 99 (2004), pp. 472-477
M. Kiedrowski, A. Mroz, M.F. Kaminski, et al.
Predictive factors of proximal advanced neoplasia in the large bowel.
Arch Med Sci, 10 (2014), pp. 484-489
C.A. Aronchick, W.H. Lipshutz, S.H. Wright, et al.
A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: Efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet phospho-soda.
Gastrointest Endosc, 52 (2000), pp. 346-352
C.A. Aronchick, W.H. Lipshutz, S.H. Wright, et al.
Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing [abstract].
Am J Gastroenterol, 94 (1999), pp. 2667
V. Binda, J. Pereira-Lima, C.A. Nunes, et al.
Is there a role for sigmidoscopy in symptomatic patients?.
Arq Gastroenterol, 44 (2007), pp. 2-6
E. Erarslan, C. Turkay, A. Isik, et al.
Prevalence of proximal neoplasms among asymptomatic patients according to distal colorectal findings.
Dig Dis Sci, 54 (2009), pp. 1312-1316
Y. Park, A.N. Freedman, M.H. Gail, et al.
Validation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction model among white patients age 50 years and older.
J Clin Oncol, 27 (2009), pp. 694-698
E.K. Wei, G.A. Colditz, E.L. Giovannucci, et al.
Cumulative risk of colon cáncer up to age 70 years by risk factor status using data from the Nurses¿ Health Study.
Am J Epidemiol, 170 (2009), pp. 863-872
A.N. Freedman, M.L. Slattery, R. Ballard-Barbash, et al.
Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility.
J Clin Oncol, 27 (2009), pp. 686-693
S.J. Winawer, A.G. Zauber, M.N. Ho, et al.
Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy The National Polyp Study Workgroup.
N Engl J Med, 329 (1993), pp. 1977-1981
A.G. Zauber, S.J. Winawer, M.J. O¿Brien, et al.
Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer death.
N Engl J Med, 366 (2012), pp. 687-696

Please cite this article as: Parra-Pérez V, Watanabe-Yamamoto J, Nago-Nago A, Astete-Benavides M, Rodríguez-Ulloa C, Valladares-Álvarez G, et al. Factores relacionados a neoplasia avanzada colorrectal en el Policlínico Peruano Japonés. Revista de Gastroenterología de México. 2015;80:239–247.

See related content at doi:, Blancas Valencia JM. ¿Debemos olvidar la rectosigmoidoscopia para el diagnóstico de neoplasia avanzada colorrectal? Revista de Gastroenterología de México. 2015;80(4):237-8.

Copyright © 2015. Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología
Revista de Gastroenterología de México
Article options
es en
Política de cookies Cookies policy
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.