학술논문

Prevalence of incidental colorectal cancer and polyps in autopsies of different populations: a systematic review with meta-regression analysis
Document Type
Review Paper
Source
European Journal of Epidemiology. 38(9):939-955
Subject
Colorectal cancer
Polyps
Prevalence
Screening
Over-treatment
Language
English
ISSN
0393-2990
1573-7284
Abstract
The colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps incidentally found in autopsies represent the lesions that have not actually caused problems throughout the lifetime and thus may not need to be removed during screening. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of incidental CRC (iCRC) and polyps in autopsies of different populations. A systematic search was performed on 19 August 2022 to identify autopsy studies that provided data on prevalence of iCRC, adenomatous polyps, hyperplastic polyps, and/or all polyps combined. The prevalence was pooled with the random-effects model. Subgroup and multivariable meta-regression analyses were conducted to investigate the heterogeneity. Forty-three eligible studies including 59,656 autopsies were identified, with 94% conducted before 1990 when CRC screening was uncommon or not available. The pooled prevalence was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3–1.2%) for iCRC, 18.4% (95% CI, 13.3–24.1%) for adenomatous polyps, 16.4% (95% CI, 8.7–25.9%) for hyperplastic polyps, 26.3% (95% CI, 15.4–38.8%) for all polyps combined, and 29.9% (95% CI, 14.8–47.6%) for iCRC plus polyps. The prevalence of iCRC was higher (1.2%) in white-predominant populations but lower (0.4%) after excluding low-quality studies. Multivariable analyses showed that the prevalence of polyps was higher in white-predominant populations and higher-quality studies, increased with age, and showed a downward trend from “before 1975” through “after 1985”. In conclusion, the prevalence of iCRC in autopsies was not low, considering the average lifetime risk of CRC, while incidental polyps were common. Both varied greatly in different populations. These findings may have implications when weighing the benefits and harms of screening.