xColorectal cancer is common with a lifetime risk of 5% and remains the second most common cause of cancer death, with low 5-year survival (55%). Early detection through bowel screening and surveillance of high-risk groups aims to identify early disease. Specialist surgery, despite the associated morbidity and mortality, offers the best chance of cure. Isolated multiorgan metastatic disease is increasingly resected, with good results. This article summarizes management of colorectal cancer, with a focus on early rectal and polyp cancers, which can pose management dilemmas.
Patients with interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis were treated with usual care plus placebo or nintedanib. The annual rate of change in forced vital capacity assessed over a 52-week period was −52.4 ml per year with nintedanib and −93.3 ml per year with placebo. There were no differences in other measures of systemic sclerosis.
In September 1811, John Collins Warren, a Boston physician,[2] along with James Jackson, submitted a formal prospectus to establish the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and Collateral Branches of Science as a medical and philosophical journal.[3] Subsequently, the first issue of the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and the Collateral Branches of Medical Science was published in January 1812.[4] The journal was published quarterly.
The journal usually has the highest impact factor of the journals of internal medicine. According to the Journal Citation Reports, NEJM had a 2017 impact factor of 79.258,[24] ranking it first of 153 journals in the category "General & Internal Medicine".[25] It was the only journal in the category with an impact factor of more than 70. By comparison, the second and third ranked journals in the category (The Lancet and JAMA) had impact factors of 53.254 and 47.661 respectively.[26]
In the early 2000s, the New England Journal of Medicine was involved in a controversy around problems with research on the drug Vioxx. A study was published in the journal in November 2000 which noted an increase in myocardial infarction amongst those taking Vioxx.[27] According to Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, concerns about the correctness of that study were raised with the journal's editor, Jeff Drazen, as early as August 2001. That year, both the US Food and Drug Administration and the Journal of the American Medical Association also cast doubt on the validity of the data interpretation that had been published in the NEJM.[28] Merck withdrew the drug from market in September 2004. In December 2005, NEJM published an expression of concern about the original study following discovery that the authors knew more about certain adverse events than they disclosed at the time of publication. From the Expression of Concern: "Until the end of November 2005, we believed that these were late events that were not known to the authors in time to be included in the article published in the Journal on November 23, 2000. It now appears, however, from a memorandum dated July 5, 2000, that was obtained by subpoena in the Vioxx litigation and made available to the Journal, that at least two of the authors knew about the three additional myocardial infarctions at least two weeks before the authors submitted the first of two revisions and 4 1/2 months before publication of the article."[29] During the five-year period between publication and Expression of Concern, it has been estimated that Merck paid NEJM as much as US$836,000 for article reprints that Merck used for promotional purposes.[30] The journal was publicly rebuked for its response to the research issues in editorials appearing in publications including the British Medical Journal[28] and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.[31]
xColorectal cancer (CRC) is common, affecting >40,000 people a year in the UK. Most cancers are sporadic but a few, such as those occurring at a younger age, have a clear genetic basis. Most are situated in the rectum or rectosigmoid and cause rectal bleeding, often with a looser or more frequent stool. Right-sided cancers typically result in anaemia, because the blood in the stool is occult and unnoticed by the patient. Almost all symptoms of malignancy can also be caused by benign disease. Diagnosis relies on luminal imaging, with colonoscopy being the gold standard.
xColorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths worldwide. This article reviews the aetiology and risk factors for CRC and focuses on strategies for prevention and early diagnosis. Prevention involves identifying and optimizing modifiable risk factors through public health awareness as well as population screening, for example using detection of occult blood in stool. Endoscopic surveillance in the UK is currently performed on a population basis with the bowel scope programme and faecal immunochemical testing, with colonoscopy reserved for patients known to be at higher risk of developing CRC.
The journal’s logo depicts the Rod of Asclepius crossed over a quill pen. The dates on the logo represent the founding of the components of the New England Journal of Medicine: 1812 for the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and Collateral Branches of Medical Science, 1823 for the Boston Medical Intelligencer, 1828 for the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, and 1928 for the New England Journal of Medicine.
In the early 2000s, the New England Journal of Medicine was involved in a controversy around problems with research on the drug Vioxx. A study was published in the journal in November 2000 which noted an increase in myocardial infarction amongst those taking Vioxx.[27] According to Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, concerns about the correctness of that study were raised with the journal's editor, Jeff Drazen, as early as August 2001. That year, both the US Food and Drug Administration and the Journal of the American Medical Association also cast doubt on the validity of the data interpretation that had been published in the NEJM.[28] Merck withdrew the drug from market in September 2004. In December 2005, NEJM published an expression of concern about the original study following discovery that the authors knew more about certain adverse events than they disclosed at the time of publication. From the Expression of Concern: "Until the end of November 2005, we believed that these were late events that were not known to the authors in time to be included in the article published in the Journal on November 23, 2000. It now appears, however, from a memorandum dated July 5, 2000, that was obtained by subpoena in the Vioxx litigation and made available to the Journal, that at least two of the authors knew about the three additional myocardial infarctions at least two weeks before the authors submitted the first of two revisions and 4 1/2 months before publication of the article."[29] During the five-year period between publication and Expression of Concern, it has been estimated that Merck paid NEJM as much as US$836,000 for article reprints that Merck used for promotional purposes.[30] The journal was publicly rebuked for its response to the research issues in editorials appearing in publications including the British Medical Journal[28] and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.[31]
In the early 2000s, the New England Journal of Medicine was involved in a controversy around problems with research on the drug Vioxx. A study was published in the journal in November 2000 which noted an increase in myocardial infarction amongst those taking Vioxx.[27] According to Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, concerns about the correctness of that study were raised with the journal's editor, Jeff Drazen, as early as August 2001. That year, both the US Food and Drug Administration and the Journal of the American Medical Association also cast doubt on the validity of the data interpretation that had been published in the NEJM.[28] Merck withdrew the drug from market in September 2004. In December 2005, NEJM published an expression of concern about the original study following discovery that the authors knew more about certain adverse events than they disclosed at the time of publication. From the Expression of Concern: "Until the end of November 2005, we believed that these were late events that were not known to the authors in time to be included in the article published in the Journal on November 23, 2000. It now appears, however, from a memorandum dated July 5, 2000, that was obtained by subpoena in the Vioxx litigation and made available to the Journal, that at least two of the authors knew about the three additional myocardial infarctions at least two weeks before the authors submitted the first of two revisions and 4 1/2 months before publication of the article."[29] During the five-year period between publication and Expression of Concern, it has been estimated that Merck paid NEJM as much as US$836,000 for article reprints that Merck used for promotional purposes.[30] The journal was publicly rebuked for its response to the research issues in editorials appearing in publications including the British Medical Journal[28] and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.[31] 
×