We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening More Evidence, Persistent Ironies

Allan S. Brett, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia
JAMA. 2014;312(6):601-602. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.8613.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In this issue of JAMA, Holme and colleagues1 report results of a large randomized trial of colorectal cancer screening in Norway in which one-time flexible sigmoidoscopy was compared with no screening. In intention-to-screen analysis—which included all people invited for screening, regardless of their follow-through—relative reductions in colorectal cancer incidence and cancer-specific mortality were 20% and 27% in the sigmoidoscopy group, respectively, compared with the no-screening control group, during an average follow-up of about 11 years. In absolute terms, colorectal cancer death was averted in 1 person per 1000; cancer-specific mortality was roughly 4 per 1000 in the control group and 3 per 1000 in the sigmoidoscopy group. Colorectal cancer mortality curves did not diverge until the ninth year, suggesting that the benefit of screening might increase with longer follow-up. Additionally, because only two-thirds of people invited for screening actually participated, the population benefit would likely be higher with greater adherence. Half the sigmoidoscopy group also received one-time immunological fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), but this addition did not improve outcomes beyond sigmoidoscopy alone.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Will This Patient Develop Persistent Disabling Low Back Pain?

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Supplemental Content