Predicting advanced neoplasia at colonoscopy in a diverse population with the National Cancer Institute colorectal cancer risk-assessment tool

Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study

OBJECTIVES

Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards.

DESIGN

Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1).

SETTING

Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.

METHODS

Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories.

RESULTS

Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider's information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the necessity that patients' experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients' information engagement into types.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01399359.

Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?

Current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations take a "one-size-fits-all" approach using age as the major criterion to initiate screening. Precision screening that incorporates factors beyond age to risk stratify individuals could improve on current approaches and optimally use available resources with benefits for patients, providers, and health care systems. Prediction models could identify high-risk groups who would benefit from more intensive screening, while low-risk groups could be recommended less intensive screening incorporating noninvasive screening modalities. In addition to age, prediction models incorporate well-established risk factors such as genetics (eg, family CRC history, germline, and polygenic risk scores), lifestyle (eg, smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity), sex, and race and ethnicity among others. Although several risk prediction models have been validated, few have been systematically studied for risk-adapted population CRC screening. In order to envisage clinical implementation of precision screening in the future, it will be critical to develop reliable and accurate prediction models that apply to all individuals in a population; prospectively study risk-adapted CRC screening on the population level; garner acceptance from patients and providers; and assess feasibility, resources, cost, and cost-effectiveness of these new paradigms. This review evaluates the current state of risk prediction modeling and provides a roadmap for future implementation of precision CRC screening.

Using Online Colorectal Cancer Risk Calculators to Guide Screening Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Several online calculators estimate colorectal cancer risk, but their consistency is unknown. Our objectives were to quantify the variation in predicted risk and to determine which calculators are best used in the clinical setting.

METHODS

We used the Google search engine to identify online colorectal cancer risk calculators and assessed the output of each for 3 hypothetical screening scenarios (low-, average-, and high-risk), varied by age (50, 62, 75 years), sex, and race (Black, White), with risk levels based on risk-appropriate values for variables in each model. Estimated risks for models within a given scenario were rated as consistent or inconsistent based on comparison with either the absolute magnitude of difference or average lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Summary statistics for consistent and inconsistent estimates were compared using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

We identified 5 online colorectal cancer risk calculators. Inconsistencies were found in none of 5-year, 19% of 10-year, and 81% of lifetime colorectal cancer risk estimate comparisons (P < .001). For a 50-year-old, 22% of risk estimate comparisons were inconsistent, vs 33% for a 62-year-old, and 36% for a 75-year-old (P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Online colorectal cancer risk models are more consistent in predicting colorectal cancer risk for 5- and 10-year time frames compared with lifetime. For a US population, the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool is a rigorously developed calculator that can be used in the clinical setting to provide 5-year and lifetime risk estimates.

Cost-Effectiveness of Earlier or More Intensive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Overweight and Obese Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Overweight and obese persons have not only elevated rates of colorectal cancer (CRC), but also higher competing mortality and healthcare spending. We examined the cost-effectiveness of intensified CRC screening in overweight and obese persons.

METHODS

We adapted our validated decision analytic model of CRC screening to compare screening starting at 45 or 40 years of age instead of at 50 years of age, or shortening screening intervals, in women and men with body mass index (BMI) ranging from normal to grade III obesity. Strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years (Colo10) or every 5 years (Colo5), or annual fecal immunochemical test.

RESULTS

Without screening, sex-specific total CRC deaths were similar for persons with overweight or obesity I-III, reflecting the counterbalancing of higher CRC risk by lower life expectancy as BMI rises. For all BMI and sex groups, Colo10 starting at 45 years of age or FIT starting at 40 years of age were cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Colo10 starting at 40 years of age was cost-effective only for men with obesity II-III, at $93,300 and $80,400 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. Shifting Colo10 to earlier starting ages was always preferred over Colo5 starting at later ages. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis, including varying all-cause mortality, complication, and BMI-specific CRC risks.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC screening starting at 45 years of age with colonoscopy, or at 40 years of age with FIT, appears cost-effective for women and men across the range of BMI. In men with obesity II-III, who have the highest CRC but also all-cause mortality risks, colonoscopy starting at 40 years of age appears cost-effective. It remains to be decided whether BMI should be used as a single predictor or incorporated into a multivariable tool to tailor CRC screening.

Faecal occult blood loss accurately predicts future detection of colorectal cancer. A prognostic model

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prognostic potential of repeated faecal haemoglobin (F-Hb) concentration measurements in faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC).

DESIGN

Prognostic model.

SETTING

Dutch biennial FIT-based screening programme during 2014-2018.

PARTICIPANTS

265 881 participants completing three rounds of FIT, with negative test results (F-Hb <47 µg Hb/g faeces) in rounds 1 and 2.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy follow-up in participants with a positive FIT (F-Hb ≥47 µg Hb/g faeces).

MAIN OUTCOMES

We evaluated prognostic models for detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) and CRC in round 3, with as predictors, participant age, sex, F-Hb in rounds 1 and 2, and categories/combinations/non-linear transformations of F-Hb. Primary evaluation criteria included: risk prediction accuracy (calibration), discrimination of participants with versus without AN or CRC (optimism-adjusted C-statistics, range 0.5-1.0), the degree of risk stratification and C-statistics in external validation.

RESULTS

Among study participants, 8806 (3.3%) had a positive FIT result, 3254 (1.2%) had AN detected and 557 (0.2%) had cancer. F-Hb concentrations in rounds 1 and 2 were the strongest outcome predictors, with adjusted ORs of up to 9.4 (95% CI 7.5 to 11.7) for the highest F-Hb category. Risk predictions matched the observed risk for most participants (calibration intercept -0.008 to -0.099; slope 0.982-0.998), and discriminated participants with versus without AN or CRC with C-statistics of 0.78 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.79) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.75), respectively. The predicted risk ranged from 0.4% to 36.7% for AN and from 0.0% to 5.5% for CRC across participants. In external validation, the model retained similar discrimination accuracy for AN (C-statistic 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87) and CRC (C-statistic 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91).

CONCLUSION

Participants at lower versus higher risk of future AN or CRC can be accurately identified based on their age, sex and particularly, prior F-Hb concentrations. Risk stratification should be considered based on this information.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

Background

We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool (‘CRISP’) to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.

Methods

Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a ‘laboratory’, we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews.

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.

Results

Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) ‘characteristics of the intervention’: CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) ‘inner setting’: the practice was open to changing systems; 3. ‘outer setting’: CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) ‘individual characteristics’: the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) ‘processes’: fidelity checking, and education was important.

Conclusions

These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01205-8.

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions

PURPOSE

In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included.

RESULTS

After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes.

Assessing Presenting Symptoms, Co-Morbidities, and Risk Factors for Mortality in Underserved Patients With Non-Hereditary Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer

Background The presenting symptoms and co-morbidities contributing to mortality in young patients (age < 50 years old) with colorectal cancer (CRC) are poorly understood. We reviewed these features in our patient population with non-hereditary early-onset CRC (EO-CRC). Study aim This study aimed to assess characteristics of patients with a diagnosis of non-hereditary EO-CRC, including presenting symptoms and metabolic disorders contributing to mortality in underserved areas of southwest Virginia. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we selected patients aged 18-50 years with a diagnosis of non-hereditary EO-CRC from 2008 to 2016 at Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital. The electronic medical record was queried to identify demographic data, medical history, histopathology results, lab values, and mortality. The cumulative risks of symptoms and co-morbid metabolic disorders was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results We identified 139 patients with non-hereditary EO-CRC (mean age 41.6 ± 6.9 years). Almost half of these patients were obese (BMI > 30), 30.9% had a diagnosis of hypertension, 29% had hyperlipidemia (HLD), and 17.35% had diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). Diagnosis was delayed by 4.5 months from initial presentation, and 17% had advanced disease (stage III/IV). Also, 68.5% of patients were symptomatic with one to three symptoms, most commonly with rectal bleeding (45.3%). The chronicity of HLD (≥5 years) was associated with reduced survival in our patients with EO-CRC. The survival of females with multiple metabolic disorders was reduced compared to females with a single metabolic disorder. Conclusions Multiple symptoms, chronic HLD, and female gender with multiple metabolic disorders were factors associated with poor outcomes in non-hereditary EO-CRC patients.

Derivation and validation of a predictive model for advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults

OBJECTIVE

Knowing risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) could help patients and providers choose among screening tests, improving screening efficiency and uptake. We created a risk prediction model for AN to help decide which test might be preferred, a use not considered for existing models.

DESIGN

Average-risk 50-to-80-year olds undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy were recruited from endoscopy units in Indiana. We measured sociodemographic and physical features, medical and family history and lifestyle factors and linked these to the most advanced finding. We derived a risk equation on two-thirds of the sample and assigned points to each variable to create a risk score. Scores with comparable risks were collapsed into risk categories. The model and score were tested on the remaining sample.

RESULTS

Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 (6.5) years; 52% women), AN prevalence was 9.4%. The 13-variable model (c-statistic=0.77) produced three risk groups with AN risks of 1.5% (95% CI 0.72% to 2.74%), 7.06% (CI 5.89% to 8.38%) and 27.26% (CI 23.47% to 31.30%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (p value <0.001), containing 23%, 59% and 18% of subjects, respectively. In the validation set of 1475 subjects (AN prevalence of 8.4%), model performance was comparable (c-statistic=0.78), with AN risks of 2.73% (CI 1.25% to 5.11%), 5.57% (CI 4.12% to 7.34%) and 25.79% (CI 20.51% to 31.66%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk subgroups, respectively (p<0.001), containing proportions of 23%, 59% and 18%.

CONCLUSION

Among average-risk persons, this model estimates AN risk with high discrimination, identifying a lower risk subgroup that may be screened non-invasively and a higher risk subgroup for which colonoscopy may be preferred. The model could help guide patient-provider discussions of screening options, may increase screening adherence and conserve colonoscopy resources.

Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer: Evaluating the discrimination due to added biomarkers

Most risk prediction models for colorectal cancer (CRC) are based on questionnaires and show a modest discriminatory ability. Therefore, we aim to develop risk prediction models incorporating plasma biomarkers for CRC to improve discrimination. We assessed the predictivity of 11 biomarkers in 736 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and 639 women in the Nurses' Health Study. We used stepwise logistic regression to examine whether a set of biomarkers improved the predictivity on the basis of predictors in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Model discrimination was assessed using C-statistics. Bootstrap with 500 randomly sampled replicates was used for internal validation. The models containing each biomarker generated a C-statistic ranging from 0.50 to 0.59 in men and 0.50 to 0.54 in women. The NCI model demonstrated a C-statistic (95% CI) of 0.67 (0.62-0.71) in men and 0.58 (0.54-0.63) in women. Through stepwise selection of biomarkers, the C-statistic increased to 0.70 (0.66-0.74) in men after adding growth/differentiation factor 15, total adiponectin, sex hormone binding globulin and tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 1B (P for difference = 0.008); and increased to 0.62 (0.57-0.66) in women after further including insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 (P for difference = .06). The NCI + selected biomarkers model was internally validated with a C-statistic (95% CI) of 0.73 (0.70-0.77) in men and 0.66 (0.61-0.70) in women. Circulating plasma biomarkers may improve the performance of risk factor-based prediction model for CRC.

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines

The Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines were developed by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society as basic guidelines based on the scientific methods. The importance of endoscopic screening and surveillance for both detection and post-treatment follow-up of colorectal cancer has been recognized as essential to reduce disease mortality. There is limited high-level evidence in this field; therefore, we had to focus on the consensus of experts. These clinical practice guidelines consist of 20 clinical questions and eight background knowledge topics that have been determined as the current guiding principles.

Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature

Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are not available. Methods  Electronic database search (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) was conducted for studies reporting detection rates of serrated polyps (SSL, Hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma) among average risk subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were pooled SDR (SSL detection rate) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR). Pooled proportion rates were calculated with 95 %CI with assessment of heterogeneity (I ² ). Publication bias, regression test and 95 %prediction interval were calculated. Results  A total of 280,370 screening colonoscopies among average risk subjects that were eligible with 48.9 % males and an average age of 58.7 years (± 3.2). The pooled SDR was available from 16 studies: 2.5 % (1.8 %-3.4 %) with significant heterogeneity (I ²  = 98.66 %) and the 95 % prediction interval ranging from 0.6 % to 9.89 %. When analysis was restricted to large (n > 1000) and prospective studies (n = 4), SDR was 2 % (1.1 %-3.3 %). Pooled PSPDR was 10 % (8.5 %-11.8 %; 12 studies). There was evidence of publication bias ( P  < 0.01). Conclusion  Definitions of SSL have been varying over years and there exists significant heterogeneity in prevalence reporting of serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Prevalence rate of 2 % for SSL and 10 % for proximal serrated polyps could serve as targets while robust high-quality data is awaited to find a future benchmark showing reduction in colorectal cancer arising from serrated pathway.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment vs Education to Promote Screening Uptake

INTRODUCTION

Risk stratification has been proposed as a strategy to improve participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence is lacking. We performed a randomized controlled trial of risk stratification using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT) on screening intent and completion.

METHODS

A total of 230 primary care patients eligible for first-time CRC screening were randomized to risk assessment via CCRAT or education control. Follow-up of screening intent and completion was performed by record review and phone at 6 and 12 months. We analyzed change in intent after intervention, time to screening, overall screening completion rates, and screening completion by CCRAT risk score tertile.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 61.7% of patients were aged <60 years, 58.7% female, and 94.3% with college or higher education. Time to screening did not differ between arms (hazard ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.18], P = 0.24). At 12 months, screening completion was 38.6% with CCRAT vs 44.0% with education (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% CI 0.47-1.37], P = 0.41). Changes in screening intent did not differ between the risk assessment and education arms (precontemplation to contemplation: OR 1.52 [95% CI 0.81-2.86], P = 0.19; contemplation to precontemplation: OR 1.93 [95% CI 0.45-8.34], P = 0.38). There were higher screening completion rates at 12 months in the top CCRAT risk tertile (52.6%) vs the bottom (32.4%) and middle (31.6%) tertiles (P = 0.10).

DISCUSSION

CCRAT risk assessment did not increase screening participation or intent. Risk stratification might motivate persons classified as higher CRC risk to complete screening, but unintentionally discourage screening among persons not identified as higher risk.

AGA White Paper: Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States

The American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference in December 2018, entitled, "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The goal of the conference, which attracted more than 60 experts in screening and related disciplines, including the authors, was to envision a future in which colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance are optimized, and to identify barriers to achieving that future. This White Paper originates from that meeting and delineates the priorities and steps needed to improve CRC outcomes, with the goal of minimizing CRC morbidity and mortality. A one-size-fits-all approach to CRC screening has not and is unlikely to result in increased screening uptake or desired outcomes owing to barriers stemming from behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic causes, especially when combined with inefficiencies in deployment of screening technologies. Overcoming these barriers will require the following: efficient utilization of multiple screening modalities to achieve increased uptake; continued development of noninvasive screening tests, with iterative reassessments of how best to integrate new technologies; and improved personal risk assessment to better risk-stratify patients for appropriate screening testing paradigms.

Risk prediction rule for advanced neoplasia on screening colonoscopy for average-risk individuals

BACKGROUND

In resource-limited countries, risk stratification can be used to optimize colorectal cancer screening. Few prospective risk prediction models exist for advanced neoplasia (AN) in true average-risk individuals.

AIM

To create and internally validate a risk prediction model for detection of AN in average-risk individuals.

METHODS

Prospective study of asymptomatic individuals undergoing first screening colonoscopy. Detailed characteristics including diet, exercise and medications were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to elucidate risk factors for AN (adenoma ≥1 cm, villous histology, high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma). The model was validated through bootstrapping, and discrimination and calibration of the model were assessed.

RESULTS

980 consecutive individuals (51% F; 49% M) were enrolled. Adenoma and AN detection rates were 36.6% (F 29%: M 45%; P < 0.001) and 5.1% (F 3.8%; M 6.5%) respectively. On multivariate analysis, predictors of AN [OR (95%CI)] were age [1.036 (1.00-1.07); P = 0.048], BMI [overweight 2.21 (0.98-5.00); obese 3.54 (1.48-8.50); P = 0.018], smoking [< 40 pack-years 2.01 (1.01-4.01); ≥ 40 pack-years 3.96 (1.86-8.42); P = 0.002], and daily red meat consumption [2.02 (0.92-4.42) P = 0.079]. Nomograms of AN risk were developed in terms of risk factors and age separately for normal, overweight and obese individuals. The model had good discrimination and calibration.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of adenoma and AN in average-risk Lebanese individuals is similar to the West. Age, smoking, and BMI are important predictors of AN, with obesity being particularly powerful. Though external validation is needed, this model provides an important platform for improved risk-stratification for screening programs in regions where universal screening is not currently employed.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Tailoring Screening to Predicted Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Decision Analytic Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Global increases in colorectal cancer risk have spurred debate about optimal use of screening resources. We explored the potential clinical and economic impact of colorectal cancer screening tailored to predicted colorectal cancer risk.

METHODS

We compared screening tailored to predicted risk versus uniform screening in a validated decision analytic model, considering the average risk population's actual colorectal cancer risk distribution, and a risk-prediction tool's discriminatory ability and cost. Low, moderate, and high risk tiers were identified as colorectal cancer risk after age 50 years of ≤3%, >3 to <12%, and ≥12%, respectively, based on threshold analyses with willingness-to-pay <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Tailored colonoscopy (once at age 60 years for low risk, every 10 years for moderate risk, and every 5 years for high risk) was compared with colonoscopy every 10 years for all. Tailored fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)/colonoscopy (annual FIT for low and moderate risk, colonoscopy every 5 years for high risk) was compared with annual FIT for all.

RESULTS

Assuming no colorectal cancer risk misclassification or risk-prediction tool costs, tailored screening was preferred over uniform screening. Tailored colonoscopy was minimally less effective than uniform colonoscopy, but saved $90,200-$889,000/QALY; tailored FIT/colonoscopy yielded more QALYs/person than annual FIT at $10,600-$60,000/QALY gained. Relatively modest colorectal cancer risk misclassification rates or risk-prediction tool costs resulted in uniform screening as the preferred approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Current risk-prediction tools may not yet be accurate enough to optimize colorectal cancer screening.

IMPACT

Uniform screening is likely to be preferred over tailored screening if a risk-prediction tool is associated with even modest misclassification rates or costs.

Advanced neoplasia in Veterans at screening colonoscopy using the National Cancer Institute Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND

Adapting screening strategy to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk may improve efficiency for all stakeholders however limited tools for such risk stratification exist. Colorectal cancers usually evolve from advanced neoplasms that are present for years. We applied the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CRC Risk Assessment Tool, which calculates future risk of CRC, to determine whether it could be used to predict current advanced neoplasia (AN) in a veteran cohort undergoing a baseline screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective assessment of the relationship between future CRC risk predicted by the NCI tool, and the presence of AN at screening colonoscopy. Family, medical, dietary and physical activity histories were collected at the time of screening colonoscopy and used to calculate absolute CRC risk at 5, 10 and 20 years. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3121 veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy, 94% had complete data available to calculate risk (N = 2934, median age 63 years, 100% men, and 15% minorities). Prevalence of AN at baseline screening colonoscopy was 11 % (N = 313). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 5 years, AN prevalences were 6.54% (95% CI, 4.99, 8.09), 11.26% (95% CI, 9.28-13.24), and 14.21% (95% CI, 12.02-16.40). For tertiles of estimated risk at 10 years, the prevalences were 6.34% (95% CI, 4.81-7.87), 11.25% (95% CI, 9.27-13.23), and 14.42% (95% CI, 12.22-16.62). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 20 years, current AN prevalences were 7.54% (95% CI, 5.75-9.33), 10.53% (95% CI, 8.45-12.61), and 12.44% (95% CI, 10.2-14.68). The area under the curve for predicting current AN was 0.60 (95% CI; 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 5 years, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 10 years and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61, p < 0.0001) at 20 years.

CONCLUSION

The NCI tool had modest discriminatory function for estimating the presence of current advanced neoplasia in veterans undergoing a first screening colonoscopy. These findings are comparable to other clinically utilized cancer risk prediction models and may be used to inform the benefit-risk assessment of screening, particularly for patients with competing comorbidities and lower risk, for whom a non-invasive screening approach is preferred.

Risk Scores for Predicting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in the Average-risk Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to summarize the available evidence on risk scores for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia (advanced adenomas and cancer) in average-risk and asymptomatic populations undergoing screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 28 March 2018. Studies that developed or validated a risk score to predict the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics including diagnostic performance indicators and assessed risk of bias and applicability in the included studies. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine the overall discrimination of risk scores evaluated by more than 1 study.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies including 17 original risk scores were identified. Risk scores included a median number of 5 risk factors. Factors most commonly included were age, sex, family history in first-degree relatives, body mass index and smoking. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of risk scores ranged from 0.62 to 0.77 in the individual studies and from 0.61 to 0.70 in the meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of available risk scores had relatively weak discriminatory power, they may be of some use for risk stratification in CRC screening. Rather than developing more risk scores based on environmental risk factors, future research should focus on exploring possibilities of enhancing predictive power by combining risk factor data with novel laboratory matters, such as polygenetic risk scores.

Precision Medicine Versus Population Medicine in Colon Cancer: From Prospects of Prevention, Adjuvant Chemotherapy, and Surveillance

With the advances of technologic revolution that provides new insights into human biology, genetics and cancer, as well as advantages of big data which amasses large amounts of information for us to approach cancer treatment and prevention, we are facing challenges of organically combining data from studies based on general population and information from individual testing and setting out precisional recommendations in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. We are obligated to accelerate the adaptation of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. In this review, we introduce our opinions on bringing knowledge of precision and population medicine together to guide our clinical practice from the prospects of colorectal cancer prevention, stage III colon cancer adjuvant therapy, and postsurgery surveillance.

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, colon cancer incidence and mortality is declining over the past decade owing to adoption of effective screening programs. Nevertheless, in some parts of the world, CRC incidence and mortality remain on the rise, likely due to factors including “westernized” diet, lifestyle, and lack of health-care infrastructure and resources. Participation and adherence to different national screening programs remain obstacles limiting the achievement of screening goals. Different modalities are available ranging from stool based tests to radiology and endoscopy with varying sensitivity and specificity. However, the availability of these tests is limited to areas with high economic resources. Recently, FDA approved a blood-based test (Epi procolon^®) for CRC screening. This blood based test may serve to increase the participation and adherence rates. Hence, leading to increase in colon cancer detection and prevention. This article will discuss various CRC screening tests with a particular focus on the data regarding the new approved blood test. Finally, we will propose an algorithm for a simple cost-effective CRC screening program.

SEPT9 and SHOX2 DNA methylation status and its utility in the diagnosis of colonic adenomas and colorectal adenocarcinomas

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) appear to arise from precursor lesions in a well-characterized adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Significant efforts have been invested to develop biomarkers that identify early adenocarcinomas and adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, since these are believed to harbor a particularly high risk for malignant transition and thus require resection. Promoter methylation of SEPT9 and SHOX2 has been suggested as a biomarker for various solid malignant tumors. Hence, the present study aimed to test their biomarker potential in CRC and precursor lesions.

Results

Assessment of promoter methylation of SEPT9 distinguished adenomas and CRC from controls as well as advanced from non-advanced adenomas (all p < 0.001). Correspondingly, SHOX2 methylation levels in adenomas and colorectal carcinomas were significantly higher compared to those in normal control tissues (p < 0.001). Histologic transition from adenomas to CRC was paralleled by amplification of the SEPT9 gene locus.

Conclusions

SEPT9/SHOX2 methylation assays may help to distinguish colorectal cancer and adenomas from normal and inflammatory colonic tissue, as well as advanced from non-advanced adenomas. Further studies need to validate these findings before introduction in clinical routine.