Questions About Cancer? 1-800-4-CANCER

Colorectal Cancer Prevention (PDQ®)

Health Professional Version
Last Modified: 02/27/2014

Overview

Factors Associated With Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer
         Excessive alcohol use
        Cigarette smoking
        Obesity
Factors Associated With a Decreased Risk of Colorectal Cancer
        Physical activity
Interventions Associated With Decreased Risk of Colorectal Cancer
        Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
        Aspirin
        Hormone therapy (estrogen plus progestin)
        Estrogen-only therapy
        Polyp removal
        Diet modification
        Calcium supplementation
        Statins

Note: Separate PDQ summaries on Colorectal Cancer Screening; Colon Cancer Treatment; and Rectal Cancer Treatment are also available.

Factors Associated With Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer

Excessive alcohol use

Based on solid evidence from observational studies, excessive alcohol use is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).[1-3]

Magnitude of Effect: A pooled analysis of eight cohort studies estimated an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–1.72) for consumption exceeding 45 g/day.[3]

Study Design: Cohort studies.
Internal Validity: Fair.
Consistency: Fair.
External Validity: Fair.
Cigarette smoking

Based on solid evidence, cigarette smoking is associated with increased incidence and mortality from CRC.

Magnitude of Effect: A pooled analysis of 106 observational studies estimated an adjusted RR (current smokers vs. never smokers) for developing CRC of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.11–1.25).[4]

Study Design: One-hundred six observational studies.
Internal Validity: Fair.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good.
Obesity

Based on solid evidence, obesity is associated with increased incidence and mortality from CRC.

Magnitude of Effect: In one large cohort study, the adjusted RR for developing colon cancer for women with a body mass index of more than 29 was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.02–2.07).[5,6] A similar increase in CRC mortality was found in another large cohort study.[7]

Study Design: Large cohort studies.
Internal Validity: Fair.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good.
Factors Associated With a Decreased Risk of Colorectal Cancer

Physical activity

Based on solid evidence, regular physical activity is associated with a decreased incidence of CRC.

Magnitude of Effect: A meta-analysis of 52 observational studies found a statistically significant 24% reduction in CRC incidence (RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72–0.81).[8]

Study Design: Cohort studies and meta-analysis.
Internal Validity: Fair.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good.
Interventions Associated With Decreased Risk of Colorectal Cancer

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Benefits

There is inadequate evidence that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces the risk of CRC. In people without genetic predisposition but with a prior history of a colonic adenoma that had been removed, three randomized controlled trials (RCT) found that celecoxib [9,10] and rofecoxib [11] decrease the incidence of recurrent adenoma, although follow-up was too short to determine whether the incidence of CRC would have been affected.

Based on solid evidence, NSAIDs reduce the risk of adenomas, but the extent to which this translates into a reduction of CRC is uncertain.

Study Design: No adequate studies with CRC outcome.
Internal Validity: Not applicable (N/A).
Consistency: N/A.
External Validity: N/A.
Harms

Based on solid evidence, harms of NSAID use are relatively common and potentially serious, and include upper gastrointestinal bleeding, chronic kidney disease, and serious cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, heart failure, and hemorrhagic stroke.[12]

Magnitude of Effect: The estimated average excess risk of upper gastrointestinal complications in average-risk people attributable to NSAIDs is 4/1,000 to 5/1,000 people per year.[13,14] The excess risk varies with the underlying gastrointestinal risk, however, it likely exceeds ten extra cases per 1,000 people per year in more than 10% of users.[15] Serious cardiovascular events are increased by 50% to 60%.[14]

Study Design: Evidence obtained from RCTs and high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses.[13,14]
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good.
Aspirin

Benefits

Based on solid evidence, daily aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]) for at least 5 years reduces CRC incidence and mortality. This is based on two reports of extended follow-up of two RCTs [16,17] and meta-analysis of observational studies.[16] A third report that adds extended follow-up of an additional two RCTs (with a meta-analysis of all four RCTs) adds certainty to this conclusion.[18]

Magnitude of Effect: After 23 years of follow-up, incidence of CRC in the placebo group was 3.8% and in the ASA group 2.5% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47–0.85). In the report from all four RCTs, the 20-year risk of death due to CRC in trials that allocated ASA for at least 5 years was reduced by about 40% (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45–0.81), absolute risk reduction was from about 3.1% to 1.9%. The primary effect was on mortality from proximal colon cancer.

Study Design: Extended follow-up of four RCTs.
Internal Validity: Fair, some data from registries and death certificates, some loss to follow-up; variation in ASA dose; adherence to ASA unknown after end of trials (5–9 years).
Consistency: Consistent.
External Validity: Fair, most data from British men; fewer data from women.
Harms

Based on solid evidence, harms of ASA use include excessive bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleeds and hemorrhagic stroke.

Magnitude of Effect: The estimated average excess risk of upper gastrointestinal complications is 10 to 30 per 1,000 people for a period of 10 years, on the higher end for men and on the lower end for women. Risk increases with age.[19]

Study Design: Evidence obtained from large databases.[15,20]
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good, data from national databases.
Hormone therapy (estrogen plus progestin)

Based on solid evidence, combined hormone therapy (conjugated equine estrogen and progestin) decreases the incidence of invasive CRC.[21]

Based on fair evidence, combination conjugated equine estrogen and progestin has little or no benefit in reducing mortality from CRC. Data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating estrogen plus progestin, with a mean intervention of 5.6 years and a follow-up of 11.6 years showed that women taking combined hormone therapy had a statistically significant higher stage of cancer (regional and distant) at diagnosis but not a statistically significant number of deaths from CRC compared with women taking the placebo.[21]

Magnitude of Effect: There were fewer CRCs in the combined hormone therapy group than in the placebo group (0.12% vs. 0.16%; HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56–0.94). A meta-analysis of cohort studies observed a RR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.76–0.97) for incidence of CRC associated with combined hormone therapy.

There were 37 CRC deaths in the combined hormone therapy arm compared with 27 deaths in the placebo arm (0.04% vs. 0.03%; HR 1.29; 95% CI, 0.78–2.11).

  • Study Design: Randomized controlled trial and cohort studies
  • Internal Validity: Good.
  • Consistency: Good for effect on incidence; N/A for effect on mortality; results were based on one trial.
  • External Validity: Good.
Estrogen-only therapy

Benefits

Based on fair evidence, conjugated equine estrogens do not affect the incidence of, or survival from, invasive CRC.[22]

Magnitude of Effect: N/A.

Study Design: One randomized controlled trial.
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: N/A.
External Validity: Good.
Harms

Based on solid evidence, harms of postmenopausal combined estrogen plus progestin hormone use include increased risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and thromboembolic events.

Magnitude of Effect: The WHI showed a 26% increase in invasive breast cancer in the combined hormone group, a 29% increase in coronary heart disease events, a 41% increase in stroke rates, and a twofold higher rate of thromboembolic events.[23]

Study Design: Evidence from RCTs.
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Fair.
Polyp removal

Benefits

Based on fair evidence, removal of adenomatous polyps reduces the risk of CRC. Much of this reduction likely comes from removal of large (i.e., >1.0 cm) polyps, while the benefit of removing smaller polyps—which are much more common—is unknown. Some but not all observational evidence indicates that this reduction may be greater for left-sided CRC than for right-sided CRC.[24-26]

Magnitude of Effect: Unknown, probably greater for larger polyps (i.e., >1.0 cm) than smaller ones.[27]

Study Design: Evidence obtained from cohort studies and one RCT of sigmoidoscopy.[25]
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Consistent.
External Validity: Good.
Harms

Based on solid evidence, the major harms of polyp removal include perforation of the colon and bleeding.

Magnitude of Effect: Seven to nine events per 1,000 procedures.[28-30]

Study Design: Evidence from retrospective cohort studies.[29,30]
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good.
Diet modification

A diet low in fat and meat and high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables

Benefits

Based on fair evidence, a diet low in fat and meat and high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables started as an adult does not reduce the risk of CRC by a clinically important degree.

Study Design: Evidence obtained from pooled analyses of multiple cohort studies and RCTs.
Internal Validity: Fair, but measurement error is a potential problem.
Consistency: Some inconsistency, with one large pooled study [31] finding a reduced risk of distal colon cancer associated with fruit and vegetable intake. RCTs have been consistent.
External Validity: Good, studies have included large population-based studies.
Harms

There are no known harms from dietary modification, including reduction of fatty acids or meats and an increase in the intake of fiber, fruits, and vegetables.

Study Design: Cohort and RCTs.
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good.
Calcium supplementation

Benefits

The evidence is inadequate to determine whether calcium supplementation reduces the risk of CRC.

Study Design: Pooled and individual prospective cohort studies, meta-analysis of three RCTs with adenoma recurrence as an outcome, and one large individual RCT in women with CRC as an outcome.
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Poor; the RCT with CRC as an outcome [32] found no reduction in CRC incidence, while prospective cohort studies found a reduction in CRC incidence between high and low calcium groups; three RCTs found a reduction in adenoma recurrence with calcium supplementation.[33]
External Validity: N/A.
Harms

The evidence is fair that elemental calcium without vitamin D as a supplement in the level of 1,000 to 1,200 mg/day increases the risk of myocardial infarction. Based on fair evidence, calcium supplementation with vitamin D at doses less than 1,000 has few harms.

Magnitude of Effect: In a meta-analysis of RCTs of calcium alone, the risk of myocardial infarction was increased from 4.8% to 5.8% (HR = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02–1.67).[34]

Study Design: Pooled and individual prospective cohort studies plus RCTs.
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Poor (one meta-analysis of 11 RCTs for calcium alone found increased myocardial infarction; no other individual studies found this).[34]
External Validity: Good.
Statins

Benefits

Based on solid evidence, statins do not reduce the incidence or mortality from CRC.

Study Design: Meta-analyses of RCTs.[35-37]
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: N/A.
Harms

Based on solid evidence, the harms of statins are small.

Study Design: Observational studies,[38] multiple RCTs, and a review.[39]
Internal Validity: Good.
Consistency: Good.
External Validity: Good.
References
  1. Longnecker MP, Orza MJ, Adams ME, et al.: A meta-analysis of alcoholic beverage consumption in relation to risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1 (1): 59-68, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Gapstur SM, Potter JD, Folsom AR: Alcohol consumption and colon and rectal cancer in postmenopausal women. Int J Epidemiol 23 (1): 50-7, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. Cho E, Smith-Warner SA, Ritz J, et al.: Alcohol intake and colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 8 cohort studies. Ann Intern Med 140 (8): 603-13, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Botteri E, Iodice S, Bagnardi V, et al.: Smoking and colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA 300 (23): 2765-78, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Martínez ME, Giovannucci E, Spiegelman D, et al.: Leisure-time physical activity, body size, and colon cancer in women. Nurses' Health Study Research Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 89 (13): 948-55, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, et al.: Physical activity, obesity, and risk for colon cancer and adenoma in men. Ann Intern Med 122 (5): 327-34, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, et al.: Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med 348 (17): 1625-38, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  8. Wolin KY, Yan Y, Colditz GA, et al.: Physical activity and colon cancer prevention: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 100 (4): 611-6, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  9. Bertagnolli MM, Eagle CJ, Zauber AG, et al.: Celecoxib for the prevention of sporadic colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med 355 (9): 873-84, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  10. Arber N, Eagle CJ, Spicak J, et al.: Celecoxib for the prevention of colorectal adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med 355 (9): 885-95, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  11. Lanas A, Baron JA, Sandler RS, et al.: Peptic ulcer and bleeding events associated with rofecoxib in a 3-year colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. Gastroenterology 132 (2): 490-7, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  12. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al.: Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 352 (11): 1092-102, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  13. Rostom A, Dubé C, Lewin G, et al.: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors for primary prevention of colorectal cancer: a systematic review prepared for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 146 (5): 376-89, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  14. Kearney PM, Baigent C, Godwin J, et al.: Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 332 (7553): 1302-8, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  15. Hernández-Díaz S, García Rodríguez LA: Cardioprotective aspirin users and their excess risk of upper gastrointestinal complications. BMC Med 4: 22, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  16. Flossmann E, Rothwell PM; British Doctors Aspirin Trial and the UK-TIA Aspirin Trial.: Effect of aspirin on long-term risk of colorectal cancer: consistent evidence from randomised and observational studies. Lancet 369 (9573): 1603-13, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  17. Rothwell PM, Wilson M, Elwin CE, et al.: Long-term effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: 20-year follow-up of five randomised trials. Lancet 376 (9754): 1741-50, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  18. Rothwell PM, Fowkes FG, Belch JF, et al.: Effect of daily aspirin on long-term risk of death due to cancer: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet 377 (9759): 31-41, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  19. US Preventive Services Task Force.: Aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 150 (6): 396-404, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  20. Hernández-Díaz S, Rodríguez LA: Incidence of serious upper gastrointestinal bleeding/perforation in the general population: review of epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2): 157-63, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  21. Simon MS, Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, et al.: Estrogen plus progestin and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. J Clin Oncol 30 (32): 3983-90, 2012.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  22. Ritenbaugh C, Stanford JL, Wu L, et al.: Conjugated equine estrogens and colorectal cancer incidence and survival: the Women's Health Initiative randomized clinical trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17 (10): 2609-18, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  23. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators.: Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288 (3): 321-33, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  24. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, et al.: Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 102 (2): 89-95, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  25. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, et al.: Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375 (9726): 1624-33, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  26. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al.: Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 154 (1): 22-30, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  27. Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M, et al.: Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 129 (1): 34-41, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  28. Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, et al.: Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 55 (3): 307-14, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  29. Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al.: Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 145 (12): 880-6, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  30. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB, et al.: Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med 150 (12): 849-57, W152, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  31. Koushik A, Hunter DJ, Spiegelman D, et al.: Fruits, vegetables, and colon cancer risk in a pooled analysis of 14 cohort studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (19): 1471-83, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  32. Wactawski-Wende J, Kotchen JM, Anderson GL, et al.: Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and the risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 354 (7): 684-96, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  33. Shaukat A, Scouras N, Schünemann HJ: Role of supplemental calcium in the recurrence of colorectal adenomas: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 100 (2): 390-4, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  34. Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Baron JA, et al.: Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis. BMJ 341: c3691, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  35. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al.: Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 366 (9493): 1267-78, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  36. Dale KM, Coleman CI, Henyan NN, et al.: Statins and cancer risk: a meta-analysis. JAMA 295 (1): 74-80, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  37. Browning DR, Martin RM: Statins and risk of cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Cancer 120 (4): 833-43, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  38. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C: Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database. BMJ 340: c2197, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  39. Joy TR, Hegele RA: Narrative review: statin-related myopathy. Ann Intern Med 150 (12): 858-68, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]