Colonoscopy reduced distal colorectal cancer risk and excess cancer risk associated with family history. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25:1329-1336. [PMID: 25048603 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-014-0438-7]

Proactive familial cancer risk assessment: a service development study in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

Family history assessment can identify individuals above population-risk for cancer to enable targeted Screening, Prevention, and Early Detection (SPED). Family History Questionnaire Service (FHQS) is a resource-efficient patient-facing online tool to facilitate this. In the UK, cancer risk assessment is usually only offered to concerned individuals proactively self-presenting to their GP, leading to inequity in accessing SPED in the community.

AIM

To improve access to community cancer genetic risk assessment and explore barriers to uptake.

DESIGN & SETTING

Service development project of a digital pathway using the FHQS for cancer risk assessment across four general practices within the clinical remit of the South West Thames Centre for Genomics (SWTCG).

METHOD

3100 individuals aged 38-50 years were invited to complete the FHQS through either text message or email. A random selection of 100 non-responders were contacted to determine barriers to uptake.

RESULTS

In total, n = 304/3100 (10%) registered for the FHQS. Responders were more likely to be British (63% vs 47%, P<0.001), speak English as their main language (92% vs 76%, P<0.001), and not require an interpreter (99.6% vs 94.9%, P = 0.001). Of 304 responders, 158 (52%) were automatically identified as at population-risk without full family history review. Of the remaining 146 responders, 52 (36%) required either additional screening referral (n = 23), genetics referral (n = 15), and/or advice to relatives (n = 18). Of 100 non-responders contacted, eight had incorrect contact details and 53 were contactable. Reasons for not responding included not receiving invitation details (n = 26), losing the invitation (n = 5), or forgetting (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

The FHQS can be used as part of a low-resource primary care pathway to identify individuals in the community above population-risk for cancer requiring action. This study highlighted barriers to uptake requiring consideration to maximise impact and minimise inequity.

Is there a place for sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening? A systematic review and critical appraisal of cost-effectiveness models

INTRODUCTION

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose. Sigmoidoscopy is an alternative screening measure with a strong evidence base. Due to its distinct characteristics, it might be preferred by subgroups. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening compared to other screening methods and to identify influencing parameters.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for the time frame 01/2010-01/2023 was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, NHS EED, as well as the Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Full economic analyses examining sigmoidoscopy as a screening measure for the general population at average risk for CRC were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. All included studies were critically assessed based on a questionnaire for modelling studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies are included in the review. Compared to no screening, sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective screening strategy for CRC. When modelled as a single measure strategy, sigmoidoscopy is mostly dominated by colonoscopy or modern stool tests. When combined with annual stool testing, sigmoidoscopy in 5-year intervals is more effective and less costly than the respective strategies alone. The results of the studies are influenced by varying assumptions on adherence, costs, and test characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The combination of sigmoidoscopy and stool testing represents a cost-effective screening strategy that has not received much attention in current guidelines. Further research is needed that goes beyond a narrow focus on screening technology and models different, preference-based participation behavior in subgroups.

Incidence and Mortality of Proximal and Distal Colorectal Cancer in Germany

BACKGROUND

The use of colonoscopy has increased and colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has decreased after the introduction of screening colonoscopy in Germany. However, it remains unknown to what extent progress has been achieved in the prevention of cancer in the proximal colon, distal colon, and rectum.

METHODS

We analyzed trends in CRC incidence (2000-2016) and mortality (2000-2018) in Germany by sex, age, and tumor location.

RESULTS

The age-standardized incidence of CRC declined by 22.4% (from 65.3 to 50.7 per 100 000) in men and by 25.5% (from 42.7 to 31.8 per 100 000) in women. CRC mortality declined by 35.8% (from 29.6 to 19.0 per 100 000) in men and by 40.5% (19.0 to 11.3 per 100 000) in women. Despite demographic changes, the annual numbers of CRC cases and deaths still decreased from about 60 400 to 58 300 and from around 28 700 to 24 200, respectively. The decline in incidence was greatest in groups aged ≥ 55 years. While the incidence of cancer in the distal colon and rectum decreased by 34.5% and 26.2%, respectively, in men and by 41.0% and 27.9% in women, the incidence of proximal colon cancer remained stable in men and decreased by only 7.0% in women. However, a major shift towards earlier stages was observed for the proximal cancers.

CONCLUSION

The results support the assumption that the increased use of colo - noscopy has contributed to substantial reductions in the incidence of distal CRC incidence and the mortality from cancers in the entire colon and rectum.

Strong Reduction of Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Screening Colonoscopy: Prospective Cohort Study From Germany

INTRODUCTION

A claimed advantage of colonoscopy over sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is prevention of CRC not only in the distal colon and rectum but also in the proximal colon. We aimed to assess the association of screening colonoscopy use with overall and site-specific CRC incidence and associated mortality.

METHODS

Information on use of screening colonoscopy as well as potential confounding factors was obtained at baseline in 2000-2002, updated at 2-, 5-, 8-, and 17-year follow-up from 9,207 participants aged 50-75 years without history of CRC in a statewide cohort study in Saarland, Germany. Covariate-adjusted associations of screening colonoscopy with CRC incidence and mortality, which were obtained through record linkage with the Saarland Cancer Registry and mortality statistics up to 2018, were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying exposure information.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 17.2 years, 268 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 98 died from CRC. Screening colonoscopy was associated with strongly reduced CRC incidence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.57) and mortality (aHR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.53), with stronger reduction for distal (aHRs 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.51, and 0.33, 95% CI 0.19-0.59, respectively) than for proximal cancer (aHRs 0.69, 95% CI 0.42-1.13, and 0.62, 95% CI 0.26-1.45, respectively). Nevertheless, strong reduction of mortality from proximal cancer was also observed within 10 years after screening colonoscopy (aHR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.96).

DISCUSSION

In this large prospective cohort study from Germany, screening colonoscopy was associated with strong reduction in CRC incidence and mortality.

Colonoscopy and Reduction of Colorectal Cancer Risk by Molecular Tumor Subtypes: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

INTRODUCTION

In previous studies, the protective effect of colonoscopy was generally stronger for distal colorectal cancer than for proximal colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to investigate whether reduction of CRC risk through colonoscopy varies according to major tumor markers and pathways of CRC.

METHODS

This is a population-based case-control study from Germany, including 2,132 patients with a first diagnosis of CRC and information on major molecular tumor markers and 2,486 control participants without CRC. Detailed participant characteristics were collected by standardized questionnaires. Information on previous colonoscopy was derived from medical records. Polytomous logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between previous colonoscopy and subtypes of CRC.

RESULTS

Overall, we observed strong risk reduction of CRC after colonoscopy that was weaker for microsatellite instable (MSI) than for non-MSI CRC (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.97 vs OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.24-0.33), for CpG island methylator phenotype high CRC than for CpG island methylator phenotype low/negative CRC (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59 vs OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.25-0.34), for BRAF-mutated than for BRAF nonmutated CRC (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.91 vs OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.25-0.35), for KRAS nonmutated than for KRAS-mutated CRC (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.40 vs OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20-0.32), and for CRC classified into the sessile serrated pathway than for CRC of the traditional pathway (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91 vs OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.25-0.37). After colonoscopy with the detection of adenomas or hyperplastic polyps, no risk reduction was found for sessile serrated pathway CRC, MSI, and BRAF-mutated subtypes.

DISCUSSION

Our study extends the molecular understanding of existing differences in risk reduction of proximal and distal CRCs reported by previous studies and may imply important information for improving strategies for timely detection of relevant precursors.

Colonoscopic screening is associated with reduced Colorectal Cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

It is the great priority to detect colorectal cancer (CRC) as early as possible, finally to reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. However, although colonoscopy is recommended in many consensuses, yet no one systematic review is conducted to figure out how colonoscopy could change the incidence and mortality. In our study, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the association between colonoscopy screening and the incidence or mortality of CRC. PubMed, EMBASE, and PMC database were systematically searched from their inception to June 2020. A total of 13 cohort and 16 case-control studies comprising 4,713,778 individuals were obtained in this review. Our results showed that colonoscopy was associated with a 52% RR reduction in incidence of CRC (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.46-0.49) and 62% RR reduction in mortality of CRC (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.36-0.40). Subgroup analysis of different interventions, study design, country, sample size, age or sex showed that the incidence and mortality reduction remained consistent, and colonoscopy screening had the same effect on people below and above 50. Our study indicated that colonoscopy could significantly reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC.

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.

Quantitative risk of positive family history in developing colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Positive family history is a risk factor for development of colorectal cancer. Despite numerous studies on the topic, the absolute risk in patients with a positive family history remains unclear and therefore studies are lacking to validate non-invasive screening methods in individuals with positive family history.

AIM

To quantify the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a positive family history.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed using PubMed from January 1955 until November 2017, EMBASE from 1947 until 2018, and Cochrane Library without date restrictions. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A meta-analysis of Mantel-Haenzel relative risks was performed using the random effects model. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to score the quality of selected papers. Funnel plot and Egger’s regression test was performed to detect publication bias. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing Asian and non-Asian studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to rule out the effect of the timing of the study, overall quality, the main outcome and the effect of each individual study in overall result.

RESULTS

Forty-six out of 3390 studies, including 906981 patients were included in the final analysis. 41 of the included studies were case-control and 5 were cohort. A positive family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives was associated with significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer with a relative risk of 1.87 (95%CI: 1.68-2.09; P < 0.00001). Cochrane Q test was significant (P < 0.00001, I² = 90%). Egger’s regression test showed asymmetry in the funnel plot and therefore the Trim and Fill method was used which confirmed the validity of the results. There was no difference between Asian versus non-Asian studies. Results remained robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with a positive family history of colorectal cancer are 1.87 times more likely to develop colorectal cancer. Screening guidelines should pay specific attention to individuals with positive family history and further studies need to be done on validating current screening methods or developing new modalities in this high-risk population.

Lack of association between screening interval and cancer stage in Lynch syndrome may be accounted for by over-diagnosis; a prospective Lynch syndrome database report

Background

Recent epidemiological evidence shows that colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to occur in carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair (path_MMR) variants despite frequent colonoscopy surveillance in expert centres. This observation conflicts with the paradigm that removal of all visible polyps should prevent the vast majority of CRC in path_MMR carriers, provided the screening interval is sufficiently short and colonoscopic practice is optimal.

Methods

To inform the debate, we examined, in the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD), whether the time since last colonoscopy was associated with the pathological stage at which CRC was diagnosed during prospective surveillance. Path_MMR carriers were recruited for prospective surveillance by colonoscopy. Only variants scored by the InSiGHT Variant Interpretation Committee as class 4 and 5 (clinically actionable) were included. CRCs detected at the first planned colonoscopy, or within one year of this, were excluded as prevalent cancers.

Results

Stage at diagnosis and interval between last prospective surveillance colonoscopy and diagnosis were available for 209 patients with 218 CRCs, including 162 path_MLH1, 45 path_MSH2, 10 path_MSH6 and 1 path_PMS2 carriers. The numbers of cancers detected within < 1.5, 1.5–2.5, 2.5–3.5 and at > 3.5 years since last colonoscopy were 36, 93, 56 and 33, respectively. Among these, 16.7, 19.4, 9.9 and 15.1% were stage III–IV, respectively (p = 0.34). The cancers detected more than 2.5 years after the last colonoscopy were not more advanced than those diagnosed earlier (p = 0.14).

Conclusions

The CRC stage and interval since last colonoscopy were not correlated, which is in conflict with the accelerated adenoma-carcinoma paradigm. We have previously reported that more frequent colonoscopy is not associated with lower incidence of CRC in path_MMR carriers as was expected. In contrast, point estimates showed a higher incidence with shorter intervals between examinations, a situation that may parallel to over-diagnosis in breast cancer screening. Our findings raise the possibility that some CRCs in path_MMR carriers may spontaneously disappear: the host immune response may not only remove CRC precursor lesions in path_MMR carriers, but may remove infiltrating cancers as well. If confirmed, our suggested interpretation will have a bearing on surveillance policy for path_MMR carriers.

Colonoscopy Reduces Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Patients With Non-Malignant Findings: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Observational studies have shown that colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in the general population. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis quantifying the magnitude of protection by colonoscopy, with screening and diagnostic indications, against CRC in patients with non-malignant findings and demonstrating the potentially more marked effect of screening over diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and conference abstracts were searched through 30 April 2015. The primary outcomes were overall CRC incidence and mortality. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies with a total of 1,499,521 individuals were included. Pooled analysis showed that colonoscopy was associated with a 61% RR reduction in CRC incidence (RR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.26-0.60; I(2)=93.6%) and a 61% reduction in CRC mortality (RR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.35-0.43; I(2)=12.0%) in patients with non-malignant findings, although there was high heterogeneity for the outcome of CRC incidence. After excluding one outlier study, there was low heterogeneity for the outcome of incidence (I(2)=44.7%). Subgroup analysis showed that the effect of screening colonoscopy was more prominent, corresponding to an 89% reduction in CRC incidence (RR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.08-0.15), in comparison with settings involving diagnostic colonoscopy (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.43-0.59; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this meta-analysis of observational studies, CRC incidence and mortality in patients with non-malignant findings are significantly reduced after colonoscopy. The effect of screening colonoscopy on CRC incidence is more marked than diagnostic colonoscopy.