The impact of stratifying by family history in colorectal cancer screening programs

Overall Health Care Cost During the Year Following Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Stratified by History of Colorectal Evaluative Procedures

Background

The cost-effectiveness of colorectal screening has been modeled; however, the cost of health care following the diagnosis of colorectal cancer has not been described stratified by history of colorectal evaluative procedures.

Methods

We identified persons with first diagnosis of colorectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 from the Ontario Cancer Registry, and categorized them by history of colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1 (the 10 years before the 6-month prediagnostic interval) with or without procedures during Period 2 (the 6 month prediagnostic interval), versus only during Period 2, versus none. We extracted overall health care cost 1 year following diagnosis from population-wide administrative databases.

Results

Among cases diagnosed at 52 to 74 years, overall health care cost among those with no colorectal evaluative procedures on or before the date of diagnosis is $71,039.65 (SD $51,825.18), compared to $48,406.15 (SD $38,843.64) among those who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2. Among the population aged 20 to 74 years at diagnosis, cases with ≥1 screening colonoscopies for hereditary CRC syndrome, the mean overall initial cost was between $32,300.32 (SD) and $33,084.67 (SD $39,905.77), and those with ≥1 screening colonoscopies because of a first-degree relative with CRC, was between $36,344.71 (SD $35,539.85) and $45,456.41 (SD $49,818.59).

Conclusions

Overall health care cost is lower among cases who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2, and among those with screening colonoscopy for hereditary CRC syndromes or affected first-degree relatives.

Cost-effectiveness of Active Identification and Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance of Lynch Syndrome Cases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The province of Ontario, Canada is considering immunohistochemical followed by cascade analyses of all patients who received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) at an age younger than 70 years to identify individuals with Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the costs and benefits of testing for Lynch syndrome and determined the optimal surveillance interval for first-degree relatives (FDRs) found to have Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

We developed a patient flow diagram to determine costs and yield of immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in CRC cases and, for those found to have Lynch syndrome, their FDRs, accounting for realistic uptake. Subsequently, we used the MISCAN-colon model to compare costs and benefits of annual, biennial, and triennial surveillance in FDRs identified with Lynch syndrome vs colonoscopy screening every 10 years (usual care for individuals without a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome).

RESULTS

Testing 1000 CRC cases was estimated to identify 20 CRC index cases and 29 FDRs with Lynch syndrome at a cost of $310,274. Despite the high cost of Lynch syndrome tests, offering the FDRs with Lynch syndrome biennial colonoscopy surveillance was cost-effective at $8785 per life-year gained compared with usual care because of a substantial increase in life-years gained (+122%) and cost savings in CRC care. Triennial surveillance was more costly and less effective, and annual surveillance showed limited additional benefit compared with biennial surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in persons younger than 70 years who received a diagnosis of CRC and then testing FDRs of those found to have Lynch syndrome provide a good balance between costs and long-term benefits. Colonoscopy surveillance every 2 years is the optimal surveillance interval for patients with Lynch syndrome.

Evidenced-Based Screening Strategies for a Positive Family History

The most commonly recognized high-risk group for colorectal cancer (CRC) is individuals with a positive family history. It is generally recognized that those with a first-degree relative (FDR) with CRC are at a 2-fold or higher risk of CRC or advanced neoplasia. FDRs of patients with advanced adenomas have a similarly increased risk. Accordingly, all major US guidelines recommend starting CRC screening by age 40 in these groups. Barriers to screening this group include patient lack of knowledge on family and polyp history, provider limitations in collecting family history, and insufficient application of guidelines.

Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG)

Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual's lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.

Towards risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening. Adding risk factors to the fecal immunochemical test: Evidence, evolution and expectations

With increasing incidence and mortality, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a growing health problem worldwide. An effective way to address CRC is by screening for fecal (occult) blood by the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). However, there is room for improvement since precursor lesions and CRC bleed intermittent and can therefore be missed by the FIT (false negatives) or, the detected blood did not result from precursor lesions or CRC (false positives). This review provides the latest evidence on risk prediction models using FIT combined with additional risk factors before colonoscopy, which risk factors to include and if these models will better discriminate between normal findings and CRC compared to the FIT-only. Many prediction models are known for CRC, but compared to the FIT, these are less effective in detecting CRC. The literature search resulted in 645 titles where 11 papers matched the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Comparing the FIT-only with the risk prediction models for detecting CRC resulted in a significantly increased discrimination for the models. In addition, 2 different risk-stratification categories before colonoscopy were distinguished, namely the 1-model approach which combined risk factors with FIT results in a prediction model while the 2 step approach used risk factors apart from the FIT. Finally, combining FIT with CRC risk factors by means of a model before colonoscopy seems effective regarding discriminative power, however, more research is needed for validation combined with transparent and standardized reporting to improve quality assessment, for which suggestions are reported in this study.

Evaluation of a fecal immunochemistry test prior to colonoscopy for outpatients with various indications

BACKGROUND

Stool tests can predict advanced neoplasms prior to colonoscopy. Results of immunochemical stool tests to predict findings at colonoscopy for various indications are less often reported. We compared pre-colonoscopy stool tests with findings in patients undergoing colonoscopy for different indications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Charts of patients undergoing elective or semi-urgent colonoscopy were reviewed. Comparison of adenoma detection rates and pathological findings was made between prescreened and non-prescreened, and between stool-positive and stool-negative cases. Demographics, quality of colonoscopy, and pathological findings were recorded. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were assessed. Statistical significance was accepted at p≤0.05.

RESULTS

Charts of 325 patients were reviewed. Among them, stool tests were done on 144 patients: 114 were negative and 30 were positive. Findings were similar in the pretest and non-pretest groups. Detection of advanced adenomas per patient was higher in the stool-positive group compared to the stool-negative group (23.4% vs 3.5%, p=0.0016, OR =7.6 [95% CI: 2-29.3]). Five advanced adenomas (without high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma) and several cases of multiple adenomas were missed in the negative group. Sensitivity and specificity for advanced polyps was 63.6% and 82.7%, respectively. The negative predictive value was 96.5%. Male gender was independently predictive of any adenoma.

CONCLUSION

The stool immunochemical test best predicted advanced neoplasms and had a high negative predictive value in this small cohort. Whether this test can be applied to determine the need for colonoscopy in groups other than average risk would require more studies.

Risk of colorectal cancer among immigrants to Ontario, Canada

Background

The risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) varies around the world and between females and males. We aimed to compare the risk of CRC among immigrants to Ontario, Canada, to its general population.

Methods

We used an exposure-control matched design. We identified persons in the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Permanent Resident Database with first eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan between July 1, 1991 and June 30, 2008 at age 40 years or older, and matched five controls by year of birth and sex on the immigrant’s first eligibility date. We identified CRC from the Ontario Cancer Registry between the index date and December 31, 2014. All analyses were stratified by sex. We calculated crude and relative rates of CRC. We estimated risk of CRC over time by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared immigrants to controls in age and sex stratified strata using log-rank tests. We modeled the hazard of CRC using Cox proportional hazards regression, accounting for within-cluster correlation by a robust sandwich variance estimation approach, and assessed an interaction with time since eligibility.

Results

Among females, 1877 cases of CRC were observed among 209,843 immigrants, and 16,517 cases among 1,049,215 controls; the crude relative rate among female immigrants was 0.623. Among males, 1956 cases of CRC were observed among 191,792 immigrants and 18,329 cases among 958,960 controls; the crude relative rate among male immigrants was 0.582.. Comparing immigrants to controls in all age and sex stratified strata, the log rank test p < 0.0001 except for females aged > = 75 years at index, where p = 0.01. The age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for CRC among female immigrants was 0.63 (95% CI 0.59, 0.67) during the first 10 years, and 0.66 (95% CI 0.59, 0.74) thereafter. Among male immigrants the age-adjusted HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.52, 0.59) during the first 10 years and increased to 0.63 (95% CI 0.57, 0.71) thereafter. The adjusted HR > = 1 only among immigrants born in Europe and Central Asia.

Conclusions

The risk of CRC among immigrants to Ontario relative to controls varies by origin and over time since immigration.

Adding family history to faecal immunochemical testing increases the detection of advanced neoplasia in a colorectal cancer screening programme

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has suboptimal sensitivity for detecting advanced neoplasia. To increase its performance, FIT could be combined with other risk factors.

AIM

To evaluate the incremental yield of a screening programme using a positive FIT or a CRC family history, to offer a diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

For this post hoc analysis, data were collected in the colonoscopy arm of a colonoscopy or colonography for screening study. In this study, 6600 randomly selected, asymptomatic men and women (50-75 years) were invited for screening colonoscopy. 1112 Participants completed a FIT and a questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. We compared the yield of FIT-only and FIT combined with CRC family history, defined as having one or more first-degree relatives with CRC.

RESULTS

At a 10 μg Hb/g faeces FIT-positivity threshold the combined strategy would increase the yield from 36 (3.2%; CI: 2.4-4.5%) to 53 (4.8%; CI: 3.7-6.2%) cases of advanced neoplasia, at the expense of 148 additional negative colonoscopies. Sensitivity in detecting advanced neoplasia would increase from 36% (CI: 26-46%) to 52% (CI: 42-63%), whereas specificity would decrease from 93% (CI: 92-95%) to 79% (CI: 76-81%). The strategy will be preferred if one accepts 8.8 false positives for every additional participant in whom advanced neoplasia can be detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering colonoscopy to those with a positive FIT or CRC family history increases the yield of a FIT-based screening programme. Depending on the number of negative colonoscopies one accepts, this combined approach can be considered for improving CRC screening.