Equivalency of fecal immunochemical tests and colonoscopy in familial colorectal cancer screening

The value of hypersensitivity quantitative fecal immunochemical test in early colorectal cancer detection

At present, both the incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer are on the rise, making early screening a crucial tool in reducing the fatality rate. Although colonoscopy is the recommended method according to the guidelines, compliance tends to be poor. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), a new technology that uses latex immunoturbidimetry to detect fecal blood, offers high specificity and sensitivity. Additionally, it is low-cost, easy to operate, and less likely to be affected by food and drugs, thus improving the compliance rate for population screening. Compared to other screening techniques, FIT represents a safer and more accurate option. This article reviews the application of FIT in early colorectal cancer screening.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

METHODS

This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Role of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: Available evidence

Colonoscopy is the cornerstone examination for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and it is recommended as the first examination in the context of individuals with high risk of CRC development. Thereby, this examination is of choice in the setting of patients with hereditary CRC syndromes or in patients with long-standing inflammatory bowel disease with colon involvement. However, its role is less clear in the average risk-risk population and in patients with family history of CRC not linked to hereditary CRC syndromes. Despite this, current guidelines, include colonoscopy as alternative for CRC screening either in average risk population with the same evidence level that other screening strategies or in the familial risk population. The present manuscript reviews the clinical evidence on the role of colonoscopy in preventing CRC in different screening settings.

Screening uptake of colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in first-degree relatives of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer: A multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial (ParCoFit study)

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Familial colorectal cancer

The introduction of average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs means that many subjects with family history of CRC and without well-described inherited syndromes can benefit from these public health policies. Therefore, the definition of which individuals should be named under the umbrella of the term "familial CRC" should be reconsidered to include only those who are outside of the protection of population-based screening and need to be moved towards a more intensive surveillance strategy. Two subgroups have been reported as having a high enough CRC risk to be included within the term "familial risk of CRC": individuals who have ≥1 first degree relative (FDR) with CRC diagnosed at age <50 years, and those who have ≥2 FDRs with CRC. Colonoscopy-based screening starting at age 40 years is proposed as the most accepted recommendation for these individuals. Finally, the evolution of Lynch syndrome screening from clinical criteria to tumor tissue analysis and new tools for screening pathogenic gene mutations associated with cancer susceptibility in individuals with early-onset CRC might help to reduce misclassification of familial CRC.

Screening and prevention of colorectal cancer

Mortality from colorectal cancer is reduced through screening and early detection; moreover, removal of neoplastic lesions can reduce cancer incidence. While understanding of the risk factors, pathogenesis, and precursor lesions of colorectal cancer has advanced, the cause of the recent increase in cancer among young adults is largely unknown. Multiple invasive, semi- and non-invasive screening modalities have emerged over the past decade. The current emphasis on quality of colonoscopy has improved the effectiveness of screening and prevention, and the role of new technologies in detection of neoplasia, such as artificial intelligence, is rapidly emerging. The overall screening rates in the US, however, are suboptimal, and few interventions have been shown to increase screening uptake. This review provides an overview of colorectal cancer, the current status of screening efforts, and the tools available to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

Factors Associated With Colorectal Cancer Screening Among First-Degree Relatives of Patients With Colorectal Cancer in China

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer have an elevated risk of colorectal cancer. However, the behavior and factors potential influencing first-degree relatives regarding colorectal cancer screening in China remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the screening behavior and related factors of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was applied, and 201 first-degree relatives participated from August 2018 to July 2019. Data were collected about demographic information, the "Colorectal Cancer Perceptions Scale," and screening behavior of first-degree relatives. Factors associated with screening behavior were identified using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Only 18.9% of first-degree relatives had participated in colonoscopy screening. Two Health Belief Model factors were the influencing factors of their participation in colorectal cancer screening. Higher possibility of colorectal cancer screening of first-degree relatives was associated with higher perceived susceptibility (odds ratio, 1.224; 95% confidence interval, 1.075-1.395) and lower perception of barriers (odds ratio, 0.880; 95% confidence interval, 0.820-0.944) of first-degree relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in colorectal cancer screening by first-degree relatives requires improvement; perceived susceptibility and perception of barriers were the most important predictors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Health professionals can enhance awareness of colorectal cancer susceptibility and address barriers to colorectal cancer screening among first-degree relatives at both individual and social levels.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.

Reappraisal of the characteristics, management, and prognosis of intramucosal colorectal cancers and their comparison with T1 carcinomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The recent description of "invasive" forms of intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) has rekindled interest in studying the characteristics, management, and prognosis of IMCs and comparing them with T1 colorectal cancers (CRCs).

METHODS

This population-based study included 282 cases of IMC and 207 cases of T1 CRC diagnosed by colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test through a screening program.

RESULTS

IMC presented mainly in the form of pedunculated polyps (68.4%) located in the distal colon (69.9%) ≥20 mm in size (60.6%). IMCs were resected endoscopically in 227 (80.5%) patients and surgically resected in 55 (19.5%) patients. Surgical patients had more right-sided, more sessile, and larger lesions. There was no sign of lymphovascular invasion. Compared with T1 CRCs, IMCs demonstrated lower rates of sessile polyps (31.6% vs 49.8%, P < .0001), primary and ultimate surgical treatment (19.5% vs 39.1% and 19.9% vs 78.7%, P < .0001, respectively), lymph node metastasis in surgical patients (0% vs 9.5%, P = .041), cancer recurrence and cancer-related mortality (0% vs 5.6% and 0% vs 2.5%, respectively), and bleeding after endoscopic resection (1.8% vs 8.7%, P = .001). By multivariate analysis of the pooled cohort (IMC + T1 CRC, n = 489), the factors significantly associated with first-line surgery were shown to be polyp characteristics and the gastroenterologist who performed the colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

IMCs account for a quarter of all screening-detected CRCs. They have an excellent prognosis regardless of whether endoscopic or surgical treatment is performed. IMCs differ significantly from T1 carcinomas in terms of management and prognosis.

The Value of Family History in Colorectal Screening Decisions for Oldest Old Geriatric Populations

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common form of cancer affecting both men and women. Extensive screening guidelines have been developed to help reduce the incidence of disease. Currently, United States Preventative Service Task Force guidelines recommend against routine screening in those 85 years and older. However, octogenarians and nonagenarians continue to be screened for CRC with no consensus on indications. The aim of this study is to examine family history of CRC as a risk factor and clinical indication for providing screening colonoscopies to the “oldest old” geriatric population, defined as aged 80 years and above.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of a Veterans’ Health Administration database to identify male veterans aged 80 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopy. Subsequently, we examined those who tested positive for CRC with a family history of CRC.

Results: Of the 458,224 patients who are 80 years and older in the Veterans Affairs (VA) database, 17.8% underwent a screening colonoscopy; 11.42% of these individuals were further diagnosed with CRC; and 8.89% of those with diagnosed CRC had a documented family history of CRC.

Conclusion: Family history should not be used as an inclusionary criterion for CRC screening in the 80 years and above age group as the rate of CRC in these patients with a family history of CRC is significantly lower than that in the younger age groups with a family history of CRC.

Feasibility and performance of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for average-risk colorectal cancer screening in Nigeria

Introduction

There is a paucity of prospective data on the performance of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in sub-Saharan Africa. The aim of this exploratory analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and performance of FIT in Nigeria.

Methods

This was a prospective, single-arm study. A convenience sample of asymptomatic, average-risk individuals between 40–75 years of age were enrolled at Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital. Study participants returned in 48 hours with a specimen for ova and parasite (O&P) and qualitative FIT (50ug/g) testing. Participants with a positive FIT had follow-up colonoscopy and those with intestinal parasites were provided treatment.

Results

Between May-June 2019, 379 individuals enrolled with a median age of 51 years (IQR 46–58). In total, 87.6% (n = 332) returned for FIT testing. FIT positivity was 20.5% (95% CI = 16.3%-25.2%). Sixty-one (89.7%) of participants with a positive FIT had a follow-up colonoscopy (n = 61), of whom 9.8% (95%CI:3.7–20.2%) had an adenoma and 4.9% (95%CI:1.0–13.7%) had advanced adenomas. Presence of intestinal parasites was inversely related to FIT positivity (6.5% with vs. 21.1% without parasites, p = 0.05). Eighty-two percent of participants found the FIT easy to use and 100% would recommend the test to eligible family or friends if available.

Conclusions

Asymptomatic, FIT-based CRC screening was feasible and well tolerated in this exploratory analysis. However, the high FIT positivity and low positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia raises concerns about its practicality and cost effectiveness in a low-resource setting such as Nigeria.

Performance of the Fecal Immunochemical Test in Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer

Objective

To assess the performance of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) among participants of a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program with one or more first-degree relatives (FDR) with CRC.

Methods

Asymptomatic 50 to 74 years olds with a FDR diagnosed with CRC, enrolled in a colon screening program completed FIT (two samples, cut-off 20 µg Hemoglobin/gram feces) and underwent colonoscopy. FIT-interval CRCs were identified from the British Columbia cancer registry. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with the detection of CRC and high-risk polyps (nonmalignant findings that required a 3-year surveillance colonoscopy) in those patients undergoing FIT and colonoscopy.

Results

Of the 1387 participants with a FDR with CRC, 1244 completed FIT with a positivity rate of 10.8%, 52 declined FIT but underwent colonoscopy and 90 declined screening. Seven CRCs were identified: six in patients with a positive FIT, one in a patient who only had colonoscopy. No CRCs were found in patients with a negative FIT. The positive and negative predictive values of FIT in the detection of CRC were 4.8% and 100%, respectively. On multivariate logistic regression, positive FIT, and not type of family history, was the only variable associated with detection of CRC or high-risk polyps. At 2-year follow-up, there was no FIT interval cancer detected in the study cohort.

Conclusion

FIT is more strongly associated with high-risk findings on colonoscopy than type of family history. FIT may be an alternative screening strategy to colonoscopy in individuals with a single FDR with CRC.

Interval Cancer Rate and Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Test According to Family History of Colorectal Cancer

Background: The potential role of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. We assessed interval cancer rate (ICR) after the FIT and FIT diagnostic performance according to family history of CRC. Methods: Using the Korean National Cancer Screening Program Database, we collected data on subjects who underwent the FIT between 2009 and 2011. The interval cancer rate (ICR) was defined as the number of subjects diagnosed with CRC within 1 year after the FIT per 1000 subjects with negative FIT results. Results: Of 5,643,438 subjects, 224,178 (3.97%) had a family history of CRC. FIT positivity rate (6.4% vs. 5.9%; adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.13) and ICR (1.4 vs. 1.1; aRR 1.43 (95% CI 1.27–1.60)) were higher in these subjects than in those with no such history. These results were the same regardless of whether subjects had undergone colonoscopy within the last 5 years before the FIT. However, the diagnostic performance of the FIT for CRC, as measured using the area under the operating characteristic curve, was similar between subjects without a family history and those with one (85.5% and 84.6%, respectively; p = 0.259). Conclusion: the FIT was 1.4 times more likely to miss CRC in subjects with a family history than in those without (aRR 1.43 for ICR), although its diagnostic performance was similar between the two groups. Our results suggest that for individuals with a family history of CRC, colonoscopy should be preferred over FIT for both screening and surveillance.

Is Colorectal Cancer Screening Appropriate in Nigeria?

PURPOSE

The global burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, largely driven by increasing incidence and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Nigeria.

METHODS

We used the Wilson-Jungner framework (1968) to review the literature relevant to CRC screening in Nigeria and propose areas for future research and investment.

RESULTS

Screening is effective when the condition sought is both important and treatable within the system under evaluation. The incidence of CRC is likely increasing, although the exact burden of disease in Nigeria remains poorly understood and access to definitive diagnosis and treatment has not been systematically quantified. In high-income countries (HICs), CRC screening builds on a well-known natural history. In Nigeria, a higher proportion of CRC seems to demonstrate microsatellite instability, which is dissimilar to the molecular profile in HICs. Prospective trials, tissue banking, and next-generation sequencing should be leveraged to better understand these potential differences and the implications for screening. Fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT) is recommended for LMICs that are considering CRC screening. However, FIT has not been validated in Nigeria, and questions about the impact of high ambient temperature, endemic parasitic infection, and feasibility remain unanswered. Prospective trials are needed to validate the efficacy of stool-based screening, and these trials should consider concomitant ova and parasite testing.

CONCLUSION

Using the Wilson-Jungner framework, additional work is needed before organized CRC screening will be effective in Nigeria. These deficits can be addressed without missing the window to mitigate the increasing burden of CRC in the medium to long term.

Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

Faecal haemoglobin can define risk of colorectal neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer

Background

Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests measure faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), which increases in the presence of colorectal neoplasia.

Objective

We examined the diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test (FIT)in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) attending for surveillance colonoscopy as per national guidelines.

Methods

A total of 1103 consecutive patients were prospectively invited to complete a FIT before their scheduled colonoscopy in two university hospitals in 2014– 2016. F-Hb was analysed on an OC-Sensor io automated analyser (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) with a limit of detection of 2 µg Hb/g faeces. The diagnostic accuracy of f-Hb for CRC and higher-risk adenoma was examined.

Results

A total of 643 patients returned a faecal test. After excluding 4 patients with known inflammatory bowel disease, 639 (57.9%) remained in the study: age range: 25–90 years (median: 64 years, interquartile range (IQR): 55–71): 54.6% male. Of 593 patients who also completed colonoscopy, 41 (6.9%) had advanced neoplasia (4 CRC, 37 higher-risk adenoma). Of the 238 patients (40.1%) who had detectable f-Hb, 31 (13.0%) had advanced neoplasia (2 CRC, 29 higher-risk adenoma) compared with 10 (2.8%) in those with undetectable f-Hb (2 CRC, 8 higher-risk adenoma). Detectable f-Hb gave negative predictive values of 99.4% for CRC and 97.2% for CRC plus higher-risk adenoma.

Conclusion

In patients at increased risk of CRC under colonoscopy surveillance, a test measuring faecal haemoglobin can provide an objective estimate of the risk of advanced neoplasia, and could enable tailored scheduling of colonoscopy.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy are the most commonly used strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. We aimed to compare their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in CRC screening in an average-risk population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Risk ratio (RR) was used to evaluate the differences in detection rates of colorectal neoplasia between FIT and colonoscopy groups. A random-effects model was used to pool RRs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies were included. The participation rate in the FIT group was higher than that in the colonoscopy group (41.6% vs 21.9%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, FIT had a detection rate of CRC comparable with colonoscopy (RR, .73; 95% confidence interval, .37-1.42) and lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Most included cost-effectiveness studies showed that annual (13/15) or biennial (5/6) FIT was cost-saving (ICER < $0) or very cost-effective ($0 < ICER ≤ $25000/quality-adjusted life-year) compared with colonoscopy every 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT may be similar to 1-time colonoscopy in the detection rate of CRC, although it has lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Furthermore, annual or biennial FIT appears to be very cost-effective or cost-saving compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. These findings indicate, at least partly, that FIT is noninferior to colonoscopy in CRC screening in an average-risk population. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.

Effects of Family History on Relative and Absolute Risks for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines recommend that individuals with familial colorectal cancer undergo colonoscopy surveillance instead of average-risk screening. However, these recommendations vary widely. To substantiate appropriate surveillance strategies, precise and valid evidence-based risk estimates are needed for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018 for case-control and cohort studies investigating the effect of family history on CRC risk. We calculated summary estimates of pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Life tables were created to convert RR estimates into absolute risk estimates.

RESULTS

We screened 4417 articles and identified 42 eligible case-control and 20 cohort studies. In case-control studies, the RR for CRC in patients with 1 first-degree relative (FDR with CRC) was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.53-2.41) and 1.37 (95% CI, 0.76-2.46) for cohort studies. For individuals with 2 or more FDRs with CRC, the RR was 2.81 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.73-4.55) and 2.40 in cohort studies (95% CI, 1.76-3.28). For individuals having a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years, the RR for CRC in their FDRs was 3.57 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.07-11.85) and 3.26 in cohort studies (95% CI, 2.82-3.77). The cumulative absolute risks for CRC at 85 years in Western Europe were 4.8% for persons with 1 FDR with CRC (95% CI, 2.7%-8.3%), 8.2% for individuals with 2 or more FDRs (95% CI, 6.1%-10.9%), and 11% for persons with a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years (95% CI, 9.5%-12.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the RR of CRC among FDRs is lower than previously expected, especially based on cohort studies. Risk estimates are affected by the number of relatives with CRC and their age at diagnosis. Intensified colonoscopy surveillance strategies could be considered for high-risk groups. PROSPERO trial identification no: CRD42018103058.

Outcomes of screening and surveillance in people with two parents affected by colorectal cancers: experiences from the Familial Bowel Cancer Service

Background

The Familial Bowel Cancer Service at The Royal Melbourne Hospital was started in 1980 in order to offer bowel cancer screening services to those felt to be at a higher risk of CRC due to their family history, and upon registration in this service, patients gave consent for recording of their individual and familial medical history as pertaining to colorectal cancer in the FamBIS database. Using the FamBIS database, we sought to understand whether the subpopulation of individuals in whom both parents were diagnosed with colorectal cancer carried a higher risk of colorectal cancer or neoplastic polyps and should therefore undergo more intensive screening above that of the average-risk individual.

Methods

We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort-study of adults (18 years of age and older) in the FamBIS database, with review of their medical histories as pertaining to CRC diagnosis, screening, and surveillance from 1980 to 2015.

Results

We identified and reviewed the medical histories of 96 registrants from 62 unique families. Registrants began screening as early as 24 years of age, with the mean age of first screening being at 44.6 ± 10.7 years old. The mean duration of screening was 17.3 ± 10.1 years, and through their screening period, registrants underwent an average of 11.5 ± 9.1 FOBTs and 4.4 ± 3.1 colonoscopies or sigmoidoscopies.

Over the course of screening, 41 (42.7%) registrants were found to have at least one neoplasm of any kind (including adenomas, advanced adenomas, and CRC) as their first positive colonoscopic finding. In total, 12 (12.5%) of the registrants were found to have an advanced neoplasm over the course of screening and surveillance, while only 2 patients were found to be diagnosed with CRC.

Conclusions

The prevalence rates for neoplasms, advanced neoplasms, and CRC in our current study were statistically significantly higher compared with those seen in average-risk populations. This supports the importance of more intensive screening for this subpopulation in preventing colorectal cancers, as well as pre-and early-cancerous neoplasms.

Optimal age for screening colonoscopy: a modeling study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommend starting screening earlier than before. We performed a simulation study to examine and compare the optimal ages to have once-only screening colonoscopy and repeated colonoscopies.

METHODS

A Markov model was set up using data from the German national screening colonoscopy registry to simulate the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma process. CRC deaths and years of potential life lost (YPLL) for a hypothetical unscreened 50-year-old German population were estimated for a single screening colonoscopy or 2 or 3 screening colonoscopies with 10-year intervals at various ages.

RESULTS

One single screening colonoscopy performed between 50 and 65 years of age was expected to reduce CRC death by 49% to 69% and YPLL by 51% to 68%. An inverted U-shaped association was found between screening age and proportion of CRC deaths or YPLL prevented. The optimal age for once-only colonoscopy that yielded the highest reductions in YPLL was around 54 years for men and 56 years for women. Estimates were approximately 6 to 8 years higher when proportions of CRC deaths prevented were examined. For 2 or 3 screening colonoscopies, the optimal starting age fell to around 50 years or even younger for both genders.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the YPLL estimates, in a high CRC incidence and high life expectancy country like Germany, the optimal age for once-only screening colonoscopy is around 55 years and possibly slightly younger for men than for women. When 2 or more screening colonoscopies are offered with 10-year intervals, screening should start at age 50 at the latest or possibly even younger for both genders.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals.

METHODS

Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Age-adapted Variation in Screening Interval of Fecal Immunochemical Test May Improve its Participation and Colonoscopy Acceptance

GOALS

We determined appropriate intervals for administering the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and performance outcomes in an Asian national colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program.

BACKGROUND

The optimal interval for FIT in CRC screening is unclear, especially in Asian populations.

STUDY

Between January 2009 and December 2015, 13,480 individuals aged 50 years or older with an initial negative FIT result underwent 2 rounds of FIT screening at intervals of 1 (annual group, 5333), 2 (biennial group, 7363), or 3 years (triennial group, 784). Positive rates of FIT, colonoscopy acceptance, colonoscopy findings, and detection rates for CRC and advanced neoplasia were compared according to FIT intervals.

RESULTS

The overall positivity rate of FIT in the second screening round was significantly higher in men and in older subjects than in the entire sample. Younger subjects were less likely to undergo annual FIT (36.0% vs. 46.4%, P<0.001). The colonoscopy acceptance rate was decreased in the biennial and triennial groups compared with an annual group among younger subjects (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.95 for the biennial group vs. odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.37 for the triennial group). Detection rates for CRC and advanced neoplasia in the second round were significantly higher and accompanied by increased FIT screening intervals in older, but not younger subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Age-adapted variation in FIT screening intervals, such as annual screening for elderly subjects and biennial screening for younger subject, may improve FIT participation and colonoscopy acceptance.

Impact of Fecal Hb Levels on Advanced Neoplasia Detection and the Diagnostic Miss Rate For Colorectal Cancer Screening in High-Risk vs. Average-Risk Subjects: a Multi-Center Study

Objectives:

The Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) scoring system was developed to identify high-risk subjects for advanced neoplasia. However, the appropriate fecal immunochemical test (FIT) cutoff for high-risk population may be different from that of average-risk population. We aimed to evaluate the FIT performance at different cutoffs in high-risk subjects undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

Methods:

We prospectively enrolled asymptomatic subjects aged 50–75 years. Using the APCS score, subjects were stratified into either the average-risk or high-risk groups. All subjects were tested with one-time quantitative FIT and underwent colonoscopy. We compared the FIT performance for advanced neoplasia between two groups using different cutoffs (5 (FIT5), 10 (FIT10), 20 (FIT20), 30 (FIT30), and 40 (FIT40) μg Hb/g feces).

Results:

Overall, 1,713 subjects were recruited, and 1,222 (71.3%) and 491 (28.7%) were classified as average-risk and high-risk, respectively. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 90 (7.4%) of the average-risk subjects and 65 (13.2%) of the high-risk subjects. In the high-risk group, by decreasing the cutoff from FIT40 to FIT5, the sensitivity increased by 33.8 percentage points with decreased specificity by 11 percentage points. In the average-risk group, the sensitivity increased by 20 percentage points with decreased specificity by 9.6 percentage points. At the lowest cutoff (FIT5), the number of needed colonoscopies to find one advanced neoplasia was 2.8 and 6.1 for the high-risk and average-risk groups, respectively.

Conclusions:

Using an appropriate FIT cutoff for CRC screening in high-risk subjects could improve CRC screening performance and reduce the unnecessary colonoscopies. To maintain high sensitivity and specificity for advanced neoplasia, the optimal cutoff FIT in the high-risk subjects should be lower than that in the average-risk subjects.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The potential role of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for screening patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) has not yet been elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of FIT for CRC or advanced neoplasia (AN) in asymptomatic patients at above-average risk.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature sources through August 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Diagnostic studies evaluating the accuracy of FIT for CRC or AN in patients with a personal or familial history of CRC using colonoscopy as the reference standard.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors (A.K. and P.P.) independently extracted data and evaluated study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, and evaluated the quality of the body of evidence by means of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Hierarchical models were used to synthesize available evidence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of FIT for detecting CRC or AN.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies (6204 participants). Seven studies were deemed at high or unclear risk of bias. The average sensitivity of FIT for CRC was 93% (95% CI, 53%-99%), and the average specificity was 91% (95% CI, 89%-92%), yielding a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 10.30 (CI 7.7-13.9) and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.75) (GRADE: very low). The average sensitivity of FIT for AN was 48% (95% CI, 39%-57%); and the average specificity was 93% (95% CI, 91%-94%), yielding an LR+ of 6.55 (95% CI, 5.0-8.5) and an LR- of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48-0.67) (GRADE: very low). Subgroup analyses indicated that FIT cutoff values between 15- and 25-μg/g feces provided the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CRC (93% and 94%, respectively). Quantitative and 1-sample FIT showed adequate test performance, but data on other FIT brands and multiple samples were insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The FIT has high overall diagnostic accuracy for CRC but moderate accuracy for AN in patients at above-average personal or familial risk. Heterogeneity and wide confidence intervals limit the trustworthiness of our findings.

Getting the first degree relatives to screen for colorectal cancer is harder than it seems-patients' and their first degree relatives' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

First degree relatives (FDR) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of CRC compared to the general population. However, screening colonoscopy rates amongst the FDRs remain dismal. The aim of the study was to explore the various issues amongst the patients and their FDR precluding their adoption of screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

A qualitative study of CRC patients and their FDRs was performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants using open-ended questions until data saturation was achieved. These qualitative data were then thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty CRC patients and thirty-one FDRs were recruited between June 2015 and December 2015. For the patients, three main themes emerged, which include (i) poor understanding of the CRC screening guidelines for their FDRs, (ii) recommendations are lacking amongst medical professionals and (iii) numerous barriers are hindering patients from being advocates for screening colonoscopy for their FDRs. For the FDRs, three main themes emerged. These include (i) poor understanding of the exact CRC screening guidelines amongst the FDRs, (ii) the lack of health promotion efforts amongst medical professionals and (iii) barriers to the uptake of screening colonoscopy such as fear of colonoscopy, high cost of the procedure, its associated inconvenience and perceived invulnerability of the individual.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and FDRs are not aware of the increased risks of developing CRC amongst the family members. Guidelines regarding screening are also not clearly understood. The numerous barriers that are present amongst the CRC patients and their FDRs can be addressed.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy

Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is 5%, and 5-year survival at early stage is 92%. Individuals with precancerous lesions removed at primary screening are typically recommended surveillance colonoscopy. Because greater benefits are anticipated for those with higher risk of colorectal cancer, scope for risk-specific surveillance recommendations exists. This review assesses published cost-effectiveness estimates of postpolypectomy surveillance to consider the potential for personalized recommendations by risk group. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced neoplasia postpolypectomy for low-risk cases were comparable to those without adenoma, with both rates under the lifetime risk of 5%. This group may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harm and inefficient use of often scarce colonoscopy capacity. Therefore, greater personalization through deintensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial. The potential for noninvasive testing, such as fecal immunochemical tests, combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention may reserve colonoscopy for targeted use in personalized risk-stratified surveillance. This review appraised evidence supporting a program of personalized surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk group and compared the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies. It assessed trade-offs among costs, benefits, and adverse effects that must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalized surveillance.

Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

To assess public preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance tests for intermediate-risk adenomas, using a hypothetical scenario.

METHODS

Adults aged 45-54 years without CRC were identified from three General Practices in England (two in Cumbria, one in London). A postal survey was carried out during a separate study on preferences for different first-line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). Individuals were allocated at random to receive a pack containing information on one first-line test, and a paragraph describing CRC surveillance recommendations for people who are diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas during screening. All participants received a description of two surveillance options: annual single-sample, home-based stool testing (consistent with Faecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy. Invitees were asked to imagine they had been diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas, and then complete a questionnaire on their surveillance preferences.

RESULTS

22.1 % (686/3,100) questionnaires were returned. 491 (15.8 %) were eligible for analysis. The majority of participants stated a surveillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no surveillance: 0.2 %). Women were more likely to prefer the stool test than men (66.7 % vs. 53.6 %; p = .011). The primary reason for preferring the stool test was that it would be done more frequently. The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of participants stated a preference for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy. Future research should test whether this translates to greater adherence in a real surveillance setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN85697880 , prospectively registered on 25/04/2013.

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.

Risk of Advanced Neoplasia in First-Degree Relatives with Colorectal Cancer: A Large Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than the general population. For this reason, screening guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 5 or 10 y, starting at the age of 40, depending on whether colorectal cancer in the index-case is diagnosed at <60 or ≥60 y, respectively. However, studies on the risk of neoplastic lesions are inconclusive. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of advanced neoplasia (three or more non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenoma, or invasive cancer) in FDR of patients with colorectal cancer compared to average-risk individuals (i.e., asymptomatic adults 50 to 69 y of age with no family history of colorectal cancer).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This cross-sectional analysis includes data from 8,498 individuals undergoing their first lifetime screening colonoscopy between 2006 and 2012 at six Spanish tertiary hospitals. Of these individuals, 3,015 were defined as asymptomatic FDR of patients with colorectal cancer ("familial-risk group") and 3,038 as asymptomatic with average-risk for colorectal cancer ("average-risk group"). The familial-risk group was stratified as one FDR, with one family member diagnosed with colorectal cancer at ≥60 y (n = 1,884) or at <60 y (n = 831), and as two FDR, with two family members diagnosed with colorectal cancer at any age (n = 300). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used for between-group comparisons after adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, and center). Compared with the average-risk group, advanced neoplasia was significantly more prevalent in individuals having two FDR with colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-2.66, p < 0.001), but not in those having one FDR with colorectal cancer diagnosed at ≥60 y (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.83-1.27, p = 0.77) and <60 y (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.90-1.58, p = 0.20). After the age of 50 y, men developed advanced neoplasia over two times more frequently than women and advanced neoplasia appeared at least ten y earlier. Fewer colonoscopies by 2-fold were required to detect one advanced neoplasia in men than in women. Major limitations of this study were first that although average-risk individuals were consecutively included in a randomized control trial, this was not the case for all individuals in the familial-risk cohort; and second, the difference in age between the average-risk and familial-risk cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals having two FDR with colorectal cancer showed an increased risk of advanced neoplasia compared to those with average-risk for colorectal cancer. Men had over 2-fold higher risk of advanced neoplasia than women, independent of family history. These data suggest that screening colonoscopy guidelines should be revised in the familial-risk population.

Adherence to Competing Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 3 Years

OBJECTIVES

We have shown that, in a randomized trial comparing adherence to different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, participants assigned to either fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or given a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy had significantly higher adherence than those assigned to colonoscopy during the first year. However, how adherence to screening changes over time is unknown.

METHODS

In this trial, 997 participants were cluster randomized to one of the three screening strategies: (i) FOBT, (ii) colonoscopy, or (iii) a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy. Research assistants helped participants to complete testing only in the first year. Adherence to screening was defined as completion of three FOBT cards in each of 3 years after enrollment or completion of colonoscopy within the first year of enrollment. The primary outcome was adherence to assigned strategy over 3 years. Additional outcomes included identification of sociodemographic factors associated with adherence.

RESULTS

Participants assigned to annual FOBT completed screening at a significantly lower rate over 3 years (14%) than those assigned to colonoscopy (38%, P<0.001) or choice (42%, P<0.001); however, completion of any screening test fell precipitously, indicating the strong effect of patient navigation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, being randomized to the choice or colonoscopy group, Chinese language, homosexuality, being married/partnered, and having a non-nurse practitioner primary care provider were independently associated with greater adherence to screening (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing competing CRC screening strategies, participants offered a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy continued to have relatively high adherence, whereas adherence in the FOBT group fell significantly below that of the choice and colonoscopy groups. Patient navigation is crucial to achieving adherence to CRC screening, and FOBT is especially vulnerable because of the need for annual testing.

Colorectal cancer screening in the familial risk population: Is colonoscopy still the strategy of choice?

First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at high risk of this disease. For this reason, medical organizations and clinical guidelines recommend more intensive screening and surveillance for such first-degree relatives than for the average-risk population. Colonoscopy has been the cornerstone of CRC screening in this setting. Although colonoscopy is the most sensitive technique for the detection of neoplastic lesions (especially non-advanced adenomas), its role is less clear for CRC. In addition, screening colonoscopy has several limitations that may affect the success of a screening campaign, such as poor participant acceptance, the need for skilled endoscopists, participant access to screening colonoscopy, overburdened endoscopy units, potential complications, and procedure-related costs. In addition, recent evidence has cast doubt on the advantage of colonoscopy over other strategies for the detection of advanced neoplastic lesions. Despite being less sensitive in general, other screening methods frequently recommended in the average-risk population may be more acceptable and thus help increase CRC screening uptake. This review discusses recent evidence on the risk of CRC in first-degree relatives, the advantages and disadvantages of each screening technique, participation rates depending on the technique, patient preferences, and barriers to screening.

Stool Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality and is widely recommended. However, despite the demonstrated benefits of screening and ongoing efforts to improve screening rates, a large percentage of the population remains unscreened. Noninvasive stool based tests offer great opportunity to enhance screening uptake. The evidence supporting the use of both fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and stool DNA (sDNA) has been growing rapidly and both tests are now commercially available for use. Other stool biomarkers (eg, RNA and protein based) are also actively under study both for use independently and as adjuncts to the currently available tests. This mini review provides current, state of the art knowledge about noninvasive stool based screening. It includes a more detailed examination of those tests currently in use (ie, FIT and sDNA) but also provides an overview of stool testing options under development (ie, protein and RNA).

Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cause of cancer-related death, it is fortunately amenable to screening with faecal tests for occult blood and endoscopic tests. Despite the evidence for the efficacy of guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT), they have not been popular with primary care providers in many jurisdictions, in part because of poor sensitivity for advanced colorectal neoplasms (advanced adenomas and CRC). In order to address this issue, high sensitivity gFOBT have been recommended, however, these tests are limited by a reduction in specificity compared with the traditional gFOBT. Where colonoscopy is available, some providers have opted to recommend screening colonoscopy to their patients instead of faecal testing, as they believe it to be a better test. Newer methods for detecting occult human blood in faeces have been developed. These tests, called faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), are immunoassays specific for human haemoglobin. FIT hold considerable promise over the traditional guaiac methods including improved analytical and clinical sensitivity for CRC, better detection of advanced adenomas, and greater screenee participation. In addition, the quantitative FIT are more flexible than gFOBT as a numerical result is reported, allowing customisation of the positivity threshold. When compared with endoscopy, FIT are less sensitive for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasms when only one time testing is applied to a screening population; however, this is offset by improved participation in a programme of annual or biennial screens and a better safety profile. This review will describe how gFOBT and FIT work and will present the evidence that supports the use of FIT over gFOBT, including the cost-effectiveness of FIT relative to gFOBT. Finally, specific issues related to FIT implementation will be discussed, particularly with respect to organised CRC screening programmes.

Familial colorectal cancer screening: When and what to do?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and represents a clinical challenge. Family members of patients affected by CRC have an increased risk of CRC development. In these individuals, screening is strongly recommended and should be started earlier than in the population with average risk, in order to detect neoplastic precursors, such as adenoma, advanced adenoma, and nonpolypoid adenomatous lesions of the colon. Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is a non invasive, widespread screening method that can reduce CRC-related mortality. Sigmoidoscopy, alone or in addition to FOBT, represents another screening strategy that reduces CRC mortality. Colonoscopy is the best choice for screening high-risk populations, as it allows simultaneous detection and removal of preneoplastic lesions. The choice of test depends on local health policy and varies among countries.