Yao Yibo, Suo Tao, Andersson Roland, Cao Yongqing, Wang Chen, Lu Jingen, Chui Evelyne
Department of Anorectal Surgery, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai Traditional Chinese Medicine University, 725 South Wanping Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, Shanghai, China, 200032.
Department of General Surgery, Institute of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, Shanghai, China, 200032.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 8;1(1):CD003430. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003430.pub2.
This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2002.Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in industrialised countries. Experimental evidence has supported the hypothesis that dietary fibre may protect against the development of CRC, although epidemiologic data have been inconclusive.
To assess the effect of dietary fibre on the recurrence of colorectal adenomatous polyps in people with a known history of adenomatous polyps and on the incidence of CRC compared to placebo. Further, to identify the reported incidence of adverse effects, such as abdominal pain or diarrhoea, that resulted from the fibre intervention.
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from Cochrane Colorectal Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (search date, 4 April 2016). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Trials Registry Platform on October 2016.
We included RCTs or quasi-RCTs. The population were those having a history of adenomatous polyps, but no previous history of CRC, and repeated visualisation of the colon/rectum after at least two-years' follow-up. Dietary fibre was the intervention. The primary outcomes were the number of participants with: 1. at least one adenoma, 2. more than one adenoma, 3. at least one adenoma greater than or equal to 1 cm, or 4. a new diagnosis of CRC. The secondary outcome was the number of adverse events.
Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed trial quality and resolved discrepancies by consensus. We used risk ratios (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure the effect. If statistical significance was reached, we reported the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We combined the study data using the fixed-effect model if it was clinically, methodologically, and statistically reasonable.
We included seven studies, of which five studies with 4798 participants provided data for analyses in this review. The mean ages of the participants ranged from 56 to 66 years. All participants had a history of adenomas, which had been removed to achieve a polyp-free colon at baseline. The interventions were wheat bran fibre, ispaghula husk, or a comprehensive dietary intervention with high fibre whole food sources alone or in combination. The comparators were low-fibre (2 to 3 g per day), placebo, or a regular diet. The combined data showed no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups for the number of participants with at least one adenoma (5 RCTs, n = 3641, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.13, low-quality evidence), more than one adenoma (2 RCTs, n = 2542, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, low-quality evidence), or at least one adenoma 1 cm or greater (4 RCTs, n = 3224, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.20, low-quality evidence) at three to four years. The results on the number of participants diagnosed with colorectal cancer favoured the control group over the dietary fibre group (2 RCTS, n = 2794, RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.85, low-quality evidence). After 8 years of comprehensive dietary intervention, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of participants with at least one recurrent adenoma (1 RCT, n = 1905, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20), or with more than one adenoma (1 RCT, n = 1905, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.24). More participants given ispaghula husk group had at least one recurrent adenoma than the control group (1 RCT, n = 376, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.08). Other analyses by types of fibre intervention were not statistically significant. The overall dropout rate was over 16% in these trials with no reasons given for these losses. Sensitivity analysis incorporating these missing data shows that none of the results can be considered as robust; when the large numbers of participants lost to follow-up were assumed to have had an event or not, the results changed sufficiently to alter the conclusions that we would draw. Therefore, the reliability of the findings may have been compromised by these missing data (attrition bias) and should be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence from existing RCTs to suggest that increased dietary fibre intake will reduce the recurrence of adenomatous polyps in those with a history of adenomatous polyps within a two to eight year period. However, these results may be unreliable and should be interpreted cautiously, not only because of the high rate of loss to follow-up, but also because adenomatous polyp is a surrogate outcome for the unobserved true endpoint CRC. Longer-term trials with higher dietary fibre levels are needed to enable confident conclusion.
这是对2002年发表的Cochrane系统评价的更新。在工业化国家,结直肠癌(CRC)是发病和死亡的主要原因。实验证据支持膳食纤维可能预防结直肠癌发生的假说,尽管流行病学数据尚无定论。
评估与安慰剂相比,膳食纤维对有腺瘤性息肉病史人群的结直肠腺瘤性息肉复发及结直肠癌发病率的影响。此外,确定因纤维干预导致的腹痛或腹泻等不良反应的报告发生率。
我们从Cochrane结直肠癌专业注册库、Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)和荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)中检索随机对照试验(RCT)(检索日期为2016年4月4日)。我们还在2016年10月检索了美国国立医学图书馆临床试验注册平台(ClinicalTrials.gov)和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台。
我们纳入RCT或半随机对照试验。研究对象为有腺瘤性息肉病史但无结直肠癌病史者,且在至少两年随访后对结肠/直肠进行重复可视化检查。干预措施为膳食纤维。主要结局为出现以下情况的参与者数量:1. 至少有一个腺瘤;2. 有一个以上腺瘤;3. 至少有一个腺瘤直径大于或等于1 cm;4. 新诊断为结直肠癌。次要结局为不良事件的数量。
两名评价员独立提取数据、评估试验质量并通过协商解决分歧。我们使用风险比(RR)和风险差(RD)及95%置信区间(CI)来衡量效果。若达到统计学显著性,我们报告获得额外有益结局(NNTB)或有害结局(NNTH)所需治疗的人数。若在临床、方法学和统计学上合理,我们使用固定效应模型合并研究数据。
我们纳入了7项研究,其中5项研究共4798名参与者提供了本评价分析的数据。参与者的平均年龄在56至66岁之间。所有参与者均有腺瘤病史,且在基线时已切除腺瘤以使结肠无息肉。干预措施为麦麸纤维、车前草籽壳,或单独或联合使用高纤维全食物来源的综合饮食干预。对照为低纤维(每天2至3克)、安慰剂或常规饮食。合并数据显示,干预组和对照组在以下方面无统计学显著差异:三年至四年时至少有一个腺瘤的参与者数量(5项RCT,n = 3641,RR 1.04,95% CI 0.95至1.13,低质量证据)、有一个以上腺瘤的参与者数量(2项RCT,n = 2542,RR 1.06,95% CI 0.94至1.20,低质量证据),或至少有一个直径1 cm或更大腺瘤的参与者数量(4项RCT,n = 3