The relationship between diverticulosis and colorectal neoplasia: A meta-analysis

Background/Aims: Diverticulosis and colorectal neoplasia share epidemiological trends and risk factors which are common in Western countries and incidences increase with age. However, the data on an association between diverticulosis and colorectal neoplasia are conflicting. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate whether diverticulosis is associated with colorectal neoplasia. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and SCOPUS was conducted to identify studies that investigated the association between diverticulosis and advanced colorectal neoplasia (advanced adenoma, colorectal cancer), adenomas, or polyps. The demographic characteristics of patients, including age, gender, indication for colonoscopy, confounding factors, and outcomes of colorectal neoplasia were assessed. Results: We identified 29 cross-sectional studies (N = 450,953) that investigated the association between diverticulosis and colorectal neoplasia. The meta-analysis found that diverticulosis was not associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–1.50). Although there was a positive correlation between diverticulosis and adenomas (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.18–1.84) and diverticulosis and polyps (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.15–3.31), diverticulosis did not increase the risk of adenomas (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.87–2.06) in patients who underwent screening colonoscopy. Moreover, all the increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with diverticulosis was observed in published studies only, and not in unpublished ones. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrated that diverticulosis is not associated with an increased risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Although diverticulosis was associated with a higher risk of polyps and adenomas, the risk was not increased in screening populations. Moreover, the increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with diverticulosis was observed only in published studies and not in unpublished ones.