Authored by Dr Reza Lankarani, General Surgeon
Founder | Surgical Pioneering Newsletter and Podcast Series
Editorial Board Member | Genesis Journal of Surgery and Medicine
------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction and Foundational Article Arrangement
A. Contextualizing the Challenge of Constipation and Colorectal Cancer Risk
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a globally significant public health concern, ranking as the third most prevalent diagnosed tumor worldwide and contributing substantially to global morbidity and mortality. Consequently, the identification of modifiable risk factors is a paramount objective in developing effective preventive strategies. Chronic constipation (CC), characterized by infrequent bowel movements or difficulty passing stools, has long been proposed as a potential modifiable CRC risk factor.
Historically, traditional epidemiological research has yielded profoundly inconsistent results, generating an "observational paradox" in the literature. Specifically, retrospective studies, such as meta-analyses of case-control data, frequently suggest a strong association between infrequent bowel movements and an increased risk of CRC. For instance, certain case-control study subgroups reported an odds ratio (OR) for colon tumors as high as 2.32 (95% CI: 1.58, 3.42). Conversely, large prospective cohort studies often show either no association between bowel movement frequency and CRC risk or, in some instances, even suggest that frequent bowel movements may enhance risk. This inherent methodological inconsistency is the classical indicator of study limitations, chiefly confounding and reverse causation bias, which plague conventional observational designs. Given this disparity, robust causal inference methods are essential to determine whether constipation is a true etiological factor or merely a reflection of underlying systemic issues.
B. Summary of the Selected Foundational Article
To assess the causal link independent of environmental and shared genetic confounding, a high-level causal inference study, such as a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis, is required. The following summary is based on the findings and methodology of contemporary studies employing this stringent approach.
Identification and Methodology
The foundational analysis reviewed utilizes a dual-sample bidirectional MR design, which leverages genetic variants as instrumental variables to assess causality, thus capitalizing on genetically determined variation to simulate randomization.
Title (Representative): Causal Association between Constipation and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Bidirectional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study
Date of Online Publishing: Varies (Consistent with recent publications, e.g., late 2023/early 2024 for similar MR studies)
DOI Link Address: (e.g., 10.3389/fonc.2023.1282066)
Publication: Peer-reviewed oncology or gastroenterology journal (e.g., Frontiers in Oncology)
The study extracted genetic data from independent cohorts derived from Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) for constipation and CRC. The investigators identified 26 significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with constipation for use as instruments. Crucially, these instruments met the criteria for "strong" instruments, demonstrating high F statistics (ranging from 20 to 30), thereby minimizing weak instrument bias.
Key Findings and Conclusions
The primary analysis employed the Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW) method to estimate the causal effect:
Constipation \rightarrow CRC (Causal Direction): The IVW-random effect analysis suggested a statistically marginal, weak causal link for overall CRC risk. The estimated effect size was an Odds Ratio of 1.002 (95% CI: 1.000, 1.004; P = 0.023).
Robustness and Alternative Methods: Despite the statistical significance observed in the IVW analysis, the study explicitly reported that alternative MR approaches (such as MR-Egger, Weighted Median, etc.) were inconclusive and did not provide substantial evidence of a causal association.
Anatomical Subsite Specificity: When constipation was analyzed separa
tely against colon cancer and rectal cancer using the same stringent methodology, no causal relationship was obtained in either anatomical subsite.
Reverse Causation (CRC \rightarrow Constipation): The bidirectional analysis found no significant causal effect of CRC on the risk of constipation. The IVW analysis resulted in an OR of 0.137 (95% CI: 0.007, 2.824; P = 0.198), failing to demonstrate that existing CRC significantly increases the risk of developing constipation.
In conclusion, the MR study suggested a potential link based on one statistical method, but the overall evidence supporting chronic constipation as a strong, independent, and uniform cause of CRC was limited.
II. Detailed Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses
As members of the General Surgery Editorial Board, a rigorous assessment of methodological strengths and weaknesses is essential to determine the clinical relevance and reliability of these findings.
A. Methodological Strengths
The primary strength of employing Mendelian Randomization lies in its capacity to address the limitations inherent in conventional observational studies.
Minimization of Confounding Bias: The MR study design utilizes genetic variants (SNPs) as instrumental variables, exploiting the random allocation of these variables at conception. This genetic randomization effectively simulates a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by ensuring the exposure (genetic predisposition to constipation) is independent of typical lifestyle and environmental confounders (e.g., smoking, socioeconomic status, diet) that are typically correlated with both constipation and CRC risk. This design bypasses the systematic biases that inflate associations in standard epidemiological research.
Rigorous Assessment of Reverse Causation: The bidirectional nature of the study provides crucial evidence that addresses a major clinical ambiguity. Many observational studies cannot distinguish if constipation is a risk factor or merely an early symptom of pre-existing, undiagnosed CRC. By explicitly testing the hypothesis of CRC \rightarrow Constipation, the MR analysis found no causal effect. This finding solidifies the understanding that constipation, if associated with CRC, acts as a potential precursor rather than a consequence.
Instrumental Validity and Statistical Power: The selection of genetic instruments was robust, requiring a high F statistic (>10) for each SNP, thereby confirming the strong association between the instruments and the exposure phenotype (constipation). This methodology ensures that the estimation of the causal effect is not undermined by weak instrument bias.
Triangulation of Analysis Techniques: The use of multiple complementary MR methods (e.g., IVW, MR-Egger, Weighted Median) allows for rigorous sensitivity analyses regarding pleiotropy—the phenomenon where a genetic variant affects the outcome through pathways other than the intended exposure. While the results were ultimately divergent, the attempt to triangulate findings enhances the overall scrutiny applied to the data.
B. Critical Weaknesses and Limitations
Despite the sophistication of the MR approach, several limitations significantly challenge the conclusion that chronic constipation is a definite causal factor.
Lack of Statistical Robustness Across Methods: This is the most critical weakness. Although the IVW-random effect analysis suggested a marginal causal link (OR 1.002), the failure of the other four sensitivity MR approaches to confirm this association raises concerns. The discrepancy strongly suggests the presence of horizontal pleiotropy, meaning that the genetic variants selected for constipation may also influence CRC risk via an unmeasured biological pathway (e.g., general inflammatory or metabolic processes) that is independent of changes in bowel habits. This possibility renders the weak causal claim highly tenuous.
Clinically Trivial Effect Size: The reported Odds Ratio of 1.002, while achieving technical statistical significance (P = 0.023), possesses no meaningful clinical significance. For
a General Surgery Editorial Board focused on identifying targets for screening or intervention, a risk factor with such a marginal effect size is not prioritized, especially when compared to high-impact modifiable risk factors such as obesity or smoking.
Absence of Subsite Specificity: The causal signal vanished when the investigators partitioned the outcome into colon cancer and rectal cancer. If the primary mechanism linking constipation to CRC were the prolonged contact time between potential carcinogens and the colonic mucosa (a widely hypothesized mechanism ), one would expect the effect to be spatially consistent, particularly in the distal colon where transit is typically slowest. The lack of an effect in anatomically defined subsites suggests that the weak overall "CRC" result is likely non-specific or due to residual statistical artifacts.
Imprecise Phenotype Definition: MR studies rely heavily on the definition of the exposure phenotype in the source GWAS. Constipation in these large cohorts is typically defined broadly, often based on patient self-report or prescription records (e.g., \ge 2 laxative prescriptions). This broad definition fails to differentiate clinically relevant constipation subtypes, specifically slow-transit constipation—which is the type most mechanistically linked to increased carcinogen exposure—from functional constipation or outlet obstruction. The inclusion of diverse constipation phenotypes likely dilutes any true biological risk that might be confined to a specific, high-risk endophenotype.
A comprehensive understanding requires contextualizing the MR findings against the spectrum of observational and controlled studies, highlighting the profound impact of confounding control.
A. Comparison with Observational Meta-Analyses
The MR findings confirm the necessity of highly controlled designs when assessing this relationship. Previous systematic reviews have provided the following inconsistent landscape:
Retrospective Bias: A large meta-analysis confirms the substantial discrepancy between study types. Case-control studies reported a significantly elevated risk of colon tumors (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.58, 3.42). This inflated OR reflects the inherent vulnerability of retrospective design to bias, particularly recall bias (patients with CRC are more likely to recall past constipation) and reverse causation (undiagnosed early-stage cancer causing new constipation).
Cohort Study Null Results: Conversely, the same meta-analysis found no association for constipation in prospective cohort studies (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.75, 1.13). Prospective cross-sectional surveys and cohort studies consistently demonstrate no increase in the prevalence of CRC in individuals with constipation. The consistency of the null finding in prospective designs strongly suggests that the association observed in retrospective studies is non-causal.
B. Comparison with Familial Confounding Control
The highest-tier evidence for controlling confounding in observational epidemiology comes from sibling-matched studies, which effectively control for unmeasured familial factors, including shared genetics and childhood environment.
The critical nationwide case-control study by Staller et al. (2022) in Sweden utilized this approach. Researchers identified 41,299 CRC cases and matched them to 203,181 age- and sex-matched general population controls. Constipation was defined rigorously using records of two or more laxative prescriptions.
Association with General Controls: After multivariable adjustment, a modest population-level association was observed (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.06–1.14). This result aligns closely with the weak, but statistically significant, observational findings.
Controlling for Familial Factors: When the analysis shifted to comparing CRC cases against their unaffected siblings, the adjusted association completely vanished (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.97–1.13).
The dissipation of the association upon inclusion of sibling comparators is a powerful demonstration that the observed weak link between constipation and CRC is primarily attributable to unmeasured shared environmental or familial confounding, rather than constipation acting as an independent pathogenic mechanism. The negligible OR (1.04) reinforces the conclusion derived from the MR study (OR 1.002): chronic constipation is not an independent driver of CRC incidence.
C. Comparison of Mechanistic Plausibility
Although the causal association is statistically weak to non-existent, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms linking constipation to processes involved in carcinogenesis remain biologically plausible and are relevant for prevention strategies focused on the gut microenvironment.
Carcinogen Exposure and Transit Time: The fundamental hypothesis linking chronic constipation (CC) and CRC involves prolonged Colonic Transit Time (CTT). Extended CTT increases the duration of contact between fecal material and the colonic mucosa. This prolonged exposure facilitates greater mucosal interaction with potential carcinogens, particularly secondary bile acids, which are known to promote tumor growth and initiate carcinogenesis.
Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis and Inflammation: Constipation is highly correlated with significant alterations in the composition and function of the gut microbiota. This dysbiosis can lead to altered metabolism of dietary components, decreased production of protective short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like butyrate, and a shift toward pro-carcinogenic microbial populations. For instance, increased abundance of species such as Fusobacterium nucleatum and certain E. coli strains is implicated in CRC development by activating oncogenic pathways (e.g., Wnt and NF-\kappaB signaling), promoting chronic inflammation, and potentially inducing chromosomal instability. Constipation thus functions as a phenotype reflecting an underlying dysbiotic, pro-inflammatory internal environment that is inherently susceptible to neoplastic transformation.
IV. Brief Scholarly Review and Future Directions
A. Expert Scholarly Review and Synthesis
The convergence of evidence from two distinct, high-stringency methodologies—sibling-matched population studies and Mendelian Randomization—offers a powerful and unified conclusion regarding the relationship between chronic constipation and colorectal cancer risk. The weight of this evidence strongly suggests that chronic constipation is not a robust, independent causal risk factor for CRC.
The high odds ratios observed in historical epidemiological literature are artifacts of systemic biases, primarily the influence of unmeasured shared familial and environmental factors. The genuine causal effect, as estimated by genetically determined risk, is so marginal (OR \approx 1.002) as to be clinically meaningless.
The implication for clinical practice and preventative oncology is that constipation should be redefined not as a primary oncogenic factor, but as a crucial clinical marker or manifestation of an underlying compromised gastrointestinal microenvironment. This environment is characterized by shared genetic/lifestyle factors that predispose an individual to motility disorders, gut dysbiosis, chronic inflammation, and, consequently, increased susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Effective management of constipation is beneficial for general gastrointestinal health, potentially mitigating secondary mechanistic pathways (e.g., reducing inflammation and carcinogen contact time), but the primary clinical focus must remain on addressing established, high-magnitude risk factors and robust screening protocols.
B. Future Research Directions
For surgical researchers, the focus must shift from proving causality to stratifying risk within the constipated population and developing targeted interventions.
Refining High-Risk Subtype Definition: Future studies are urgently needed to move beyond the broad definition of constipation used in current GWAS data. Research should aim to isolate and genetically characterize specific, high-risk endophenotypes of constipation (e.g., radiologically confirmed severe slow-transit constipation or specific defecatory disorders). By defining constipation based on objective physiological measures, it may be possible to identify a highly concentrated subgroup where the prolonged CTT hypothesis holds true and the independent CRC risk is meaningful.
Mechanistic Intervention Trials: Given the strong evidence linking constipation to gut dysbiosis, future randomized controlled trials should evaluate whether targeted, aggressive management of the intestinal microenvironment—specifically focusing on interventions that normalize transit time and composition (e.g., novel prokinetics, targeted probiotics, or prebiotic fibers)—can reduce molecular or endoscopic surrogate markers of carcinogenesis, such as inflammatory indices, aberrant crypt foci, or adenoma recurrence, in high-risk patients.
Molecular Pathology and Anatomical Correlation: The lack of a uniform causal effect across anatomical subsites (colon versus rectum) warrants deeper investigation into the molecular pathology of constipation-associated CRC. Future work should seek molecular markers (e.g., mutation profiles or methylation patterns) that differentiate tumors arising in patients with chronic constipation, potentially exploring regional differences in bacterial metabolite exposure and immune response along the colon.
V. Accessible Summary for Patients and the Public
The complexities of epidemiological statistics and genetic causality (Mendelian Randomization) must be translated into clear, actionable advice for ordinary individuals and patients, ensuring that the core concepts are readily grasped without the use of technical jargon.
Expert Perspective: Constipation and Cancer Risk (A Jargon-Free Summary)
The Main Finding: Constipation Itself is Not a Major Cause of Colon Cancer, But It Re
quires Attention.
Decades of medical research have explored whether chronic constipation—defined as having less than three bowel movements per week, passing hard stools, or feeling incomplete evacuation—directly causes colorectal cancer (CRC). The latest, most rigorous studies suggest that, for the vast majority of people, the answer is no.
Understanding the Previous Confusion:
Older studies often found that people with CRC reported having chronic constipation more often than healthy people. However, when doctors used powerful new research methods—like comparing people with cancer to their own unaffected siblings, or using genetic clues that are randomly assigned at birth—the suggested cancer risk from constipation almost entirely disappeared.
This vanishing risk means that the initial connection was likely due to shared background factors. If a family shares poor eating habits, low physical activity, or certain genetic tendencies, those factors can cause both constipation and cancer. Constipation, in this context, is often a sign of an unhealthy internal environment, not the independent cause of the cancer itself.
The Crucial Distinction: Symptom vs. Cause
While chronic constipation is usually not the cause of CRC, new or persistent changes in bowel habits are one of the most common warning signs of existing CRC. This distinction is paramount:
Constipation as a Symptom: As a tumor grows, it can physically block or irritate the colon, leading to new difficulties with bowel movements. If the constipation starts suddenly or gets worse quickly, it may be signaling an underlying issue.
The Biological Link (Why Management Matters): Constipation means stool sits in the colon for longer periods. This extended time can allow for harmful bacteria to flourish and increase contact time between the colon lining and compounds that could promote inflammation. Therefore, managing constipation through a healthy diet (high fiber), hydration, and exercise is essential for optimal gut health and overall well-being, even if it is not the primary mechanism for preventing cancer.
When to See a Doctor Immediately (The Red Flags):
Anyone experiencing persistent symptoms (longer than two weeks) or who is over the age of 45 should consult a physician. It is especially critical to seek immediate medical attention if constipation is accompanied by any of these warning signs :
Blood in the stool (bright red or dark/black stools).
Unexplained, significant weight loss.
Severe or persistent abdominal pain.
A sudden, noticeable change in stool size or shape (e.g., very thin stools).
Managing chronic constipation improves quality of life, but vigilance regarding these red flag symptoms and adherence to recommended screening schedules (such as colonoscopy) remain the most effective strategies for preventing and detecting colorectal cancer early.
By Dr Reza Lankarani, General Surgeon
Founder | Surgical Pioneering Newsletter and Podcast Series
Editorial Board Member | Genesis Journal of Surgery and Medicine
------------------------------------------------------------
To access additional details, please refer to the Surgical Pioneering Podcast Series application available at the following link:
https://Surgicalpioneer.codeadx.me
Get full access to Reza Lankarani at lankarani.substack.com/subscribe
