An algorithm to predict advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia in Chinese asymptomatic population

New scoring systems for predicting advanced proximal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults with or without knowing distal colorectal findings: a prospective, cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Models estimating risk for advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia (APN) may be used to select colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test, either prior to knowing distal colorectal findings or afterward. Current models have only fair discrimination and nearly all require knowing distal findings.

OBJECTIVE

Derive and test risk prediction models for APN with and without distal findings.

SETTING

Selected endoscopy centers within central Indiana, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Average-risk persons undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Demographics, personal and family medical history, lifestyle factors and physical measures were linked to the most advanced finding in proximal and distal colorectal segments. For both models, logistic regression identified factors independently associated with APN on a derivation set. Based on equation coefficients, points were assigned to each factor, and risk for APN was examined for each score. Scores with comparable risks were collapsed into risk categories. Both models and their scoring systems were tested on the validation set.

MAIN OUTCOME

APN, defined as any adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥1 cm, one with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or CRC proximal to the descending colon.

RESULTS

Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 ± 6.5 years; 52% women), APN prevalence was 4.5%; 2859 (94.5%) had complete data on risk factors. Independently associated with APN were age, sex, cigarette smoking, cohabitation status, metabolic syndrome, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and physical activity. This model (without distal findings) was well-calibrated (P = 0.62) and had good discrimination (c-statistic = 0.73). In low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups that comprised 21, 58 and 21% of the sample, respectively, APN risks were 1.47% (95% CI, 0.67-2.77%), 3.09% (CI, 2.31-4.04%) and 11.6% (CI, 9.10-14.4%), respectively (P < 0.0001), with no proximal CRCs in the low-risk group and 2 in the intermediate-risk group. When tested in the validation set of 1455, the model retained good metrics (calibration P = 0.85; c-statistic = 0.83), with APN risks in low- (22%), intermediate- (56%) and high-risk (22%) subgroups of 0.62% (CI, 0.08-2.23%) 2.20% (CI, 1.31-3.46%) and 13.0% (CI, 9.50-17.2%), respectively (P < 0.0001). There were no proximal CRCs in the low-risk group, and two in the intermediate-risk group. The model with distal findings performed comparably, with validation set metrics of 0.18 for calibration, 0.76 for discrimination and APN risk (% sample) in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups of 1.1 (69%), 8.3 (22%) and 22.3% (9%).

CONCLUSION

These models stratify large proportions of average-risk persons into clinically meaningful risk groups, and could improve screening efficiency, particularly for noncolonoscopy-based programs.

Development and Validation of the Asia-Pacific Proximal Colon Neoplasia Risk Score

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients found to be at high risk of advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening should be considered for colonoscopy examination. We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN.

METHODS

We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ² test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.

RESULTS

In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.

Capability of four sigmoidoscopy-based screening strategies to predict proximal neoplasia in an asymptomatic Chinese population

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A proper colonoscopy referral criterion is essential for flexible sigmoidoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening. We aimed to compare the predictive capability of four existing criteria to detect proximal neoplasia (PN) and advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in a Chinese population.

METHODS

Asymptomatic Chinese participants aged 50-75 years, who received screening colonoscopy, were consecutively recruited. The four criteria included (i) UK flexible sigmoidoscopy; (ii) Italian Screening for COlon REctum; (iii) NORwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial; and (iv) US clinical index. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, and the number of subjects needed to screen (NNS)/refer (NNR) to detect one APN/PN were examined. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 5833 subjects, 749 (12.8%) and 151 (2.6%) cases were found to have PN and APN, respectively. US criteria achieved the highest sensitivity for PN (49%) and APN (66%), while UK criteria attained the highest specificity (93%) for PN/APN. The lowest NNS was required by US criteria for PN (16 vs 19-38) and APN (58 vs 69-86), while the lowest NNR was required by UK criteria for PN (3.2 vs 4.0-4.8) and APN (7 vs 10-16). The receiver operating characteristic of all four criteria was 0.57-0.61 for PN and 0.68-0.70 for APN.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all the four criteria, US criteria had the highest sensitivity and lowest NNS, while UK criteria achieved the highest specificity and lowest NNR. Their limited discriminatory capability highlighted the need for a new score to predict PN/APN in Chinese populations.

The Association between Distal Findings and Proximal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Whether screening participants with distal hyperplastic polyps (HPs) detected by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) should be followed by subsequent colonoscopy is controversial. We evaluated the association between distal HPs and proximal neoplasia (PN)/advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in asymptomatic, average-risk patients.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 30 June 2016 and included all screening studies that examined the relationship between different distal findings and PN/APN. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We pooled absolute risks and odds ratios (ORs) with a random effects meta-analysis. Seven subgroup analyses were performed according to study characteristics. Heterogeneity was characterized with the I² statistics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 studies (104,961 subjects). When compared with normal distal findings, distal HP was not associated with PN (OR=1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.89-1.51, P=0.14, I²=40%) or APN (OR=1.09, 95% CI=0.87-1.36, P=0.39, I²=5%), while subjects with distal non-advanced or advanced adenoma had higher odds of PN/APN. Higher odds of PN/APN were observed for more severe distal lesions. Weaker association between distal and proximal findings was noticed in studies with higher quality, larger sample size, population-based design, and more stringent endoscopy quality-control measures. The Egger's regression tests showed all P>0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal HP is not associated with PN/APN in asymptomatic screening population when compared with normal distal findings. Hence, the presence of distal HP alone detected by FS does not automatically indicate colonoscopy referral for all screening participants, as other risk factors of PN/APN should be considered.