Colonoscopy in asymptomatic individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer

Family health history: an essential starting point for personalized risk assessment and disease prevention

Family health history (FHH) information is well established as a basis for assessing a patient's personal disease risk, but is underutilized for diagnosis and making medical recommendations. Epidemiological and genetic information have heightened the value of FHH to an individual's health. This has motivated the development of new FHH collection tools and strategies for family members, but will require greater awareness and knowledge by both patients and practitioners. FHH will be increasingly important as genomic data become a mainstay of medical diagnostics, since in many cases, a medically important FHH results from lineage-specific genetic variants. The impact of complementary FHH and genomic information will drive the pursuit of personalized and precise targeting of treatments and interventions aimed at maintaining patient health.

Adenoma detection rate in high-risk patients differs from that in average-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) are established as quality targets in average-risk (AR) individuals undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopy. Little is known about the ADR in high-risk (HR) individuals undergoing index or surveillance colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare ADR in HR versus AR individuals undergoing colonoscopy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study, tertiary care center.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

We reviewed records of 7357 patients who underwent colonoscopy by 66 multispecialty endoscopists at our institution during the period 2008 to 2009. Both screening and surveillance colonoscopies in AR and HR patients for CRC were studied. HR patients were further divided into 3 subgroups: those with a (1) personal history of polyps (PHP), (2) family history of polyps (FHP), and (3) family history of CRC (FHCRC). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate differences in ADR between the groups after adjusting for possible confounders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

ADR in HR patients.

RESULTS

The study included 4141 patients, of whom 2170 were AR and 1971 were HR. Patients in the HR group were older (64.5 ± 9.1 years vs 59.1 ± 7.9 years, P < .001). HR patients were more likely to have adenomas (30.7% vs 25.6%, P < .001). Adenomas were detected more often in the proximal colon than in the distal colon (29.3% vs 21.0%, P < .001 and 22.8% vs 15.8%, P < .001, respectively). Patients with a PHP had the highest ADR (33.1%, P < .001). However, after adjusting for confounders, HR status was not found to be associated with ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.6; P = .15 for females and 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.2; P = .61 for males). HR females were found to have a 40% greater likelihood of having proximal adenomas than AR females (1.4; 95% CI, 1.01-2; P = .04).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, single tertiary center.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a PHP have a significantly higher ADR compared with AR patients. Defining a minimum target ADR for individuals with a PHP undergoing surveillance colonoscopy is important.

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals in Familial Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals with familial colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the appropriate screening interval has not yet been determined. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare a 3-year with a 6-year screening interval.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individuals between ages 45 and 65 years with one first-degree relative with CRC age < 50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC were selected. Patients with zero to two adenomas at baseline were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group A (colonoscopy at 6 years) or group B (colonoscopy at 3 and 6 years). The primary outcome measure was advanced adenomatous polyps (AAPs). Risk factors studied included sex, age, type of family history, and baseline endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

A total of 528 patients were randomly assigned (group A, n = 262; group B, n = 266). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients with AAPs at the first follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 3 years in group B (3.5%). Also, the proportion of patients with AAPs at the final follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 6 years in group B (3.4%) was not significantly different. Only AAPs at baseline was a significant predictor for the presence of AAPs at first follow-up. After correction for the difference in AAPs at baseline, differences between the groups in the rate of AAPs at first follow-up and at the final examination were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In view of the relatively low rate of AAPs at 6 years and the absence of CRC in group A, we consider a 6-year surveillance interval appropriate. A surveillance interval of 3 years might be considered in patients with AAPs and patients with ≥ three adenomas.

Colonoscopy reduced distal colorectal cancer risk and excess cancer risk associated with family history

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy efficacy at preventing proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) is questioned, and little is known about efficacy in high-risk versus medium-risk populations. We investigated the relationship between colonoscopy screening, family history of colorectal cancer (FHCC), and CRC risk by site.

METHODS

Among 92,078 women of the E3N prospective cohort, 692 CRCs have been diagnosed after a median follow-up of 15.4 years. Cox proportional hazard models estimated adjusted hazards ratios according to subsites of cancer and FHCC.

RESULTS

A personal history of colonoscopy (PHC; n = 37,470) was associated with decreased rectal and distal colon cancer risks (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.42-0.78 and HR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.26-0.52, respectively), but not proximal colon cancer risk (HR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.64-1.18). In women with no prior colonoscopy, those with FHCC had a 80% higher CRC risk than those without FHCC. In women with previous colonoscopy, CRC risk was similar in women with and without FHCC (p for interaction = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Results showed colonoscopy ability to prevent distal cancers, but not proximal cancers in women. Colonoscopy screening also reduced the excess risk of women with FHCC to that of women with no FHCC.

Colorectal cancer screening in patients at moderately increased risk due to family history

Patients with a positive family history have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and, in many countries, more intensive screening regimens, sometimes involving the use of colonoscopy as opposed to sigmoidoscopy or fecal occult blood testing, are recommended. This review discusses current screening guidelines in the United States and other countries, data on the magnitude of CRC risk in the presence of a family history and the efficacy of recommended screening programs, as well as ancillary issues such as compliance, cost-effectiveness and accuracy of family history ascertainment. We focus on the relatively common “sporadic” family histories of CRC, which typically imparts a mild to moderate elevation in the risk for CRC development in the proband. Defined familial syndromes associated with extremely high risks of CRC, such as hereditary non-polyposis colorectal syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis, require specialized management approaches and are beyond the scope of this article. We will also not discuss colonoscopic surveillance in patients with a personal history of adenomas or CRC.

Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an alternative diagnostic test to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer and polyps. The aim of this study was to determine test characteristics important to patients and to examine trade-offs in attributes that patients are willing to accept in the context of the diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A discrete choice study was used to assess preferences of patients with clinical indications suspicious of colorectal cancer who experienced both CTC and colonoscopy as part of a diagnostic accuracy study in South Australia. Results were analyzed by using a mixed logit model and presented as odds ratios (ORs) for preferring CTC over colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy was preferred over CTC as the need for a second procedure after CTC increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.013), as the likelihood of missing cancers or polyps increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.62), and as CTC test cost increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.65-0.80). CTC would be preferred to colonoscopy if a minimal bowel preparation was available (OR = 1.7). Some patients were prepared to trade off the diagnostic and therapeutic advantage of colonoscopy for a CTC study with a less intensive bowel preparation. Preferences also varied significantly with sociodemographic characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite CTC's often being perceived as a preferred test, this may not always be the case. Informed decision making for diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer should include discussion of the benefits, downsides, and uncertainties associated with alternative tests, as patients are willing and able to make trade-offs between what they perceive as the advantages and disadvantages of these diagnostic tests.

Increased risk of adenomas in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer: results of a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear to what extent the increased risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer and no known genetic disorders is associated with a higher adenoma prevalence. Our aim is to estimate the relative difference in adenoma prevalence and its age-pattern in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer compared to those without.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to identify colonoscopy studies reporting the adenoma prevalence by age. Using multilevel logistic regression, we examined how the adenoma prevalence by age differed between individuals with and without a family history of colorectal cancer. We excluded members of families with a known genetic disorder.

RESULTS

Thirteen colonoscopy studies were identified. The adenoma prevalence was significantly higher in individuals with a family history than in those without (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-3.5). The adenoma prevalence increased with age (OR per year of age 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07). The age trend did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer have a considerably higher prevalence of adenomas compared to individuals without a family history. This is consistent with their increased risk of colorectal cancer.

A decision-analytic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening programs

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of family history screening (FHS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) susceptibility at age 40 with early screening of those with increased risk.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of several family history-based screening programs was estimated with a validated microsimulation model, using data from the SEER cancer registry, life tables, medicare records, and published data. Familial cancer syndromes were excluded. Screening programs evaluated included (i) colonoscopy screening every 10 years starting at age 50 (no family history assessment); (ii) colonoscopy every 10 years from age 40 for persons with a family history; (iii) colonoscopy every 5 years from age 50 for those with a family history; and (iv) colonoscopy every 5 years from age 40 for persons with a family history. In each FHS scenario, persons without a family history are screened with colonoscopy at age 50, then every 10 years to age 80.

RESULTS

Compared with colonoscopy screening of all persons from age 50, the cost-effectiveness of the family history-based screening programs varied from $18,000-$51,000 per life year (LY) gained. Screening family history cases every 5 years from age 40 is more cost-effective than screening every 10 years from age 40. Reducing screening frequency for those without a family history lowers program expenditures substantially at a modest loss of LYs. The results are sensitive to the CRC risk difference between positive and negative family histories.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of CRC FHS guidelines varies widely. Economic issues should be considered before implementing family history-directed screening programs.

The BSG/ACPGBI guidelines for colonoscopic screening: what are we missing?

INTRODUCTION

Before publication of the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines in 2002, screening for people with a family history of colorectal cancer was sporadic and largely dependant on unvalidated local guidelines. Since 1990 we have been screening patients with both high and moderate risk family histories of colorectal cancer using local protocols which were more liberal than the new guidelines. In this study, we have analysed the pathology that would have been missed if we had been using the new guidelines in the period 1990-2002.

METHOD

A total of 399 consecutive patients with a positive family history of colorectal malignancy underwent screening endoscopy according to local guidelines. Demographic, endoscopic and pathologic data were prospectively collected. Patients were retrospectively divided into those who would have been screened under the new guidelines (group 1) and those who would not (group 2). The recorded pathology was graded as significant or insignificant and the findings compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 399 patients underwent 557 endoscopies of which 278 (50%) were indicated under the new guidelines (group 1) and 279 (50%) were not indicated (group 2). A significant pathology or carcinoma was found in 15.8% of group 1 endoscopies and 10.0% of group 2 endoscopies. This difference was significant.

CONCLUSION

If we had been using the new guidelines in the period 1990-2002, we would not have performed 279 (50%) of the 557 procedures, but would not have discovered significant pathology in 10% of the moderate risk endoscopies representing 39% of the significant pathology, which was actually present in this population.

The changing distribution of colorectal cancer in Barbados: 1985-2004

PURPOSE

Recent reports have suggested a shift to the right in older female patients of colon cancer. This is believed to be representative of more accessible national endoscopic screening programs.

METHODS

We report the demographic shift in colorectal cancer based on an analysis of resection specimens during four five-year time periods from 1985 to 2004 at the University Hospital, Barbados. Differences in population-based colorectal cancer incidence, age, gender, site, stage, and presentation (emergency vs. elective) are analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,014 specimens obtained from 993 patients were analyzed, showing a progressive population-based increase in colorectal cancer in Barbados during this 20-year time period. There was an increase in right-sided tumors (P < 0.0001) without a concomitant decline in left-sided tumors. There was a significant increase in Dukes A cancers (P < 0.0001) without gender predilection. During the time period, there was a significant reduction in right-sided tumors presenting as emergencies (P < 0.005) without an effect of stage or gender.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a steady increase in both right-sided and left-sided colonic cancers without gender predilection. The increase in early-stage tumors and reduction in emergency presentations during the latter part of the study suggests value in instituting a formal national colonoscopic screening program to assess its prospective effect on these parameters.

Colorectal cancer screening: results of a 5-year program in asymptomatic subjects at increased risk

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The province of Ferrara has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Italy. In January 2000, we set up a colonoscopy screening program focussing on first-degree relatives of CRC patients. We now report the results 5 years after the beginning of the project. SCREENEES AND METHODS: In October 1999, we started a campaign stressing the usefulness of colonoscopy for the first-degree relatives of CRC patients. Subjects included in the screening program were aged between 45 and 75 years with at least one first-degree relative affected by CRC. They were invited to an interview where a physician suggested colonoscopy as a screening option.

RESULTS

In 5 years, 776 subjects were interviewed and 733 (94.4%) agreed to an endoscopic examination (M/F:375/401; mean age 55 years): 562 colonoscopies were performed. Adenomas and cancers were found in 122 (21.7%) and 12 (2.1%) subjects, respectively. Histological examination in 181 persons with lesions (32.8%) showed (most serious lesion quoted) 47 hyperplastic polyps (26% of all lesions), 2 serrated adenomas (1.1%), 68 tubular adenomas (48%), 24 tubulovillous adenomas (13.3%), 9 adenomas with high grade dysplasia (5%) and 12 adenocarcinomas (6.6%). The majority of the cancers were at an early stage (8 Dukes A and 3 Dukes B). Sedation was used in only 42 colonoscopies (7.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

A colonoscopy-based screening in this selected high-risk population is feasible. Even without sedation subjects readily agreed to the endoscopic procedure. We identified a significant number of advanced neoplasms and cancers at an early stage suggesting that this could be a useful tool in early identification of CRC.

Use, appropriateness, and diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy: an international observational study (EPAGE)

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been shown to decrease mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To examine determinants associated with having (1) a screening colonoscopy, (2) an appropriate indication for screening, and (3) a significant diagnosis at screening.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Twenty-one endoscopy centers from 11 countries.

PATIENTS

Asymptomatic patients who underwent a colonoscopy for the purpose of detecting CRC and who did not have a history of polyps or CRC, a lesion observed at a recent barium enema or sigmoidoscopy, or a recent positive fecal occult blood test.

INTERVENTION

Screening colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Appropriateness according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria and significant diagnoses (cancer, adenomatous polyps, new diagnoses of inflammatory bowel disease, angiodysplasia).

RESULTS

Of 5069 colonoscopies, 561 (11%) were performed for screening purposes. Patients were more likely to have a screening colonoscopy if they were aged 45 to 54 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60-3.99). Screening colonoscopies were appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate in 26%, 60%, and 14% of cases, respectively. Eighty-one significant diagnoses were made, including 4 cancers. Significant diagnoses were more often made for uncertain/appropriate indications (OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.12-9.17) than for inappropriate indications.

LIMITATIONS

Although data completeness was asked of all centers, it is possible that not all consecutive patients were included. Participating centers were a convenience sample and thus may not be representative.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 of 10 colonoscopies were performed for screening, preferentially in middle-aged individuals. A higher diagnostic yield in uncertain/appropriate indications suggests that the use of appropriateness criteria may enhance the efficient use of colonoscopy for screening.