Abstract:Awareness of the substantial morbidity and mor- tality attributable to colorectal cancer has focused attention on early detection and prevention through screening and on other strategies such as chemo- prevention. Among several agents under evaluation, aspirin appears to have the inside track. Could as- pirin reduce the burden of disease associated with the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States? A protective effect of aspirin is biologically plau- sible. Aspirin works in part through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2, an enzyme that is found in colorectal cancer tissue. Epidemiologic studies have shown a consistent 40 to 50 percent reduction in the risk of colorectal neoplasia, despite differences in the design of the studies, the populations studied, patterns of aspirin use, and outcomes. In random- ized trials involving patients with familial polypo- sis, sulindac and celecoxib have reduced the num- ber and size of adenomatous polyps. However, the only randomized trial of aspirin found no reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer either during the 5-year study period or up to 12 years after the study began. It is unlikely that there will be a definitive clini- cal trial of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for the primary or secondary chemopreven- tion of colorectal cancer in which colorectal cancer is the outcome, because a large sample and long- term follow-up would be needed. However, given the belief that the development of most colorectal cancers follows a sequence leading from adenoma to carcinoma, a clinical trial in which aspirin reduced the rate of recurrence of adenomas might make a compelling case for its effectiveness. The results of two such trials are reported in this issue of the Journal. In the study by Sandler and colleagues (pages 883-890), 635 patients who were cured of colorec- tal cancer were randomly assigned to receive 325 mg of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo daily. The trial was terminated after a median duration of treatment of 31 months because one or more adenomas were discovered in 17 percent of the patients in the aspi- rin group and 27 percent of those in the placebo group. Although the number of adenomas was low- er among the patients in the aspirin group, the mean size of the adenomas did not differ significantly be- tween groups, nor did the proportions of patients with advanced adenomas. The hazard ratio for de- tection of a new polyp in the aspirin group as com- pared with the placebo group was 0.64, indicating that aspirin delayed the development of adenomas. Adverse effects were infrequent, and the rates were similar in the two groups. In the study by Baron and colleagues (pages 891-899), 1121 patients who had recently had ad- enomas removed were randomly assigned to place- bo, to 81 mg of aspirin daily, or to 325 mg of aspi- rin daily. After a mean duration of treatment of 33 months, advanced neoplasms were found in 12.9 percent of the patients in the placebo group, 7.7 per- cent of those in the 81-mg group, and 10.7 percent of those in the 325-mg group. The rate of recurrence of adenomas was significantly lower in the group taking lower-dose aspirin than in the placebo group, but for unclear reasons, the larger dose of aspirin did not significantly reduce the rate of recurrence. Stroke and serious bleeding were more frequent in the aspirin groups than in the placebo group, but the differences were not statistically significant. These trials indicate that aspirin reduces the risk of recurrent adenomas among persons with a history of colorectal cancer or adenomas. Does this mean that aspirin should now be recommended for secondary chemoprevention in persons with a his- tory of colorectal neoplasia or for primary chemo- prevention in the 90 percent of persons 50 years of age or older who are considered to be at average risk for colorectal cancer? This question requires con- sideration of the clinical importance of the out-

Does low-dose aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention reduce colorectal cancer deaths? A comparison of two cohorts in the Florence district, Italy

Low-dose Aspirin and Cancer Mortality: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Low-dose aspirin use and survival in colorectal cancer: results from a population-based cohort study

Prediagnostic use of low‐dose aspirin and risk of incident metastasis and all‐cause mortality among patients with colorectal cancer

Low-dose aspirin and prevention of colorectal cancer: evidence from a nationwide registry-based cohort in Norway

Low‐dose aspirin use and colorectal cancer survival in 32,195 patients—A national cohort study

Aspirin and the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases: An Approach Based on Individualized, Integrated Estimation of Risk

Association of prophylactic low-dose aspirin use with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in cancer patients

Low-Dose Aspirin or Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use and Colorectal Cancer Risk

The role of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of colorectal cancer

A Prospective Study of Aspirin Use and the Risk for Colorectal Adenoma

Aspirin Use and Incidence of Colorectal Cancer According to Lifestyle Risk

Safety and effectiveness of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of gastrointestinal cancer in adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a population-based cohort study

Aspirin in the Chemoprevention of Colorectal Neoplasia: An Overview

Aspirin Use and Common Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

New use of low-dose aspirin and risk of colorectal cancer by stage at diagnosis: a nested case–control study in UK general practice

Aspirin and the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer

Effect of Aspirin on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Older Adults

Risks of Colorectal Neoplasms and Cardiovascular Thromboembolic Events after the Combined Use of Selective COX-2 Inhibitors and Aspirin with 5-Year Follow-Up: a Meta-Analysis

Aspirin for prevention of colorectal cancer in the elderly: friend or foe?

The Protective Effect of Low-Dose Aspirin against Colorectal Cancer Is Unlikely Explained by Selection Bias: Results from Three Different Study Designs in Clinical Practice