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

BETTER LIFE- guidelines for chronic disease preventive care for people aged 18-39 years: a literature review

BACKGROUND

The original 'BETTER' (Building on Existing Tools To Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) approach consisted of a prevention-focused visit between participants aged 40-65 years and a "Prevention Practitioner" (PP), who empowered the participant to set achievable prevention and screening goals for cancers and chronic diseases. BETTER was successfully adapted for economically deprived communities (BETTER HEALTH) in Canada. Our objective was to conduct a review of guidelines in preparation for adapting the 'BETTER HEALTH' approach for younger adults aged 18-39 years living with lower income, a group known to have earlier mortality due to a higher prevalence of preventable chronic diseases than their peers with higher income.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases and grey literature for clinical practice guidelines on prevention/screening and included those that met the following criteria: published in English from 2008-2020 in Canada or any of the following countries (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and England); and addressed prevention or screening. We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and extracted data (publication details, recommendations, and Quality/Level of evidence as reported by authors) from sources with overall scores of 5 or higher. Final recommendations were compiled after harmonization with input from diverse stakeholders (co-investigators, PPs, and the Community Advisory Committee).

RESULTS

We included a total of 85 guidelines, and developed a final list of 42 recommendations for 18-39 year-olds across 21 topics. Specific recommendations fell under the following topics: cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, lifestyle (alcohol; healthy nutrition/physical activity); healthy relationships and healthy sexuality, immunization, oral health, social determinants of health, and substance use.

CONCLUSION

We identified evidence-based guidelines on individual-level prevention/screening actions for adults 18-39 years old and relevant for those living with lower income which will directly inform development and implementation of the BETTER LIFE intervention.

Colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk and high-risk individuals: A systematic review

AIMS

This review aims to summarize the different colorectal cancer guidelines for average-risk and high-risk individuals from various countries.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search regarding guidelines, consensus recommendations, or position statements about colorectal cancer screening published within the last 10 years (1st January 2012 to 27th August 2022), was performed at EBSCOhost, JSTOR, PubMed, ProQuest, SAGE, and ScienceDirect.

RESULTS

A total of 18 guidelines were included in this review. Most guidelines recommended screening between 45 and 75 years for average-risk individuals. Recommendations regarding colorectal cancer screening in high-risk individuals were more varied and depended on the risk factor. For high-risk individuals with a positive family history of colorectal cancer or advanced colorectal polyp, screening should begin at age 40. Some frequently suggested screening modalities in order of frequency are colonoscopy, FIT, and CTC. Furthermore, several screening intervals were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years for average-risk and every 5-10 years for high-risk individuals, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk individuals, and CTC every five years for all individuals.

CONCLUSION

All individuals with average-risk should undergo colorectal cancer screening between 45 and 75. Meanwhile, individuals with higher risks, such as those with a positive family history, should begin screening at age 40. Several recommended screening modalities were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years in average-risk and every 5-10 years in high-risk, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk, and CTC every five years.

Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program.

METHODS

A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations.

RESULTS

We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Information needs of Lynch syndrome and BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers considering risk-reducing gynecological surgery: a qualitative study of the decision-making process

BACKGROUND

Risk-reducing gynecological surgery (RRGS) is a prophylactic procedure that may be offered to BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome (LS) mutation carriers to reduce the risk of developing gynecological cancer. This study was conducted to better understand patients' information needs and evaluate how patients weigh different sources of information in their decision-making process surrounding RRGS.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative approach to understanding women's perspectives towards RRGS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually with 8 women. Women offered RRGS between 35 and 70 years of age who are English-speaking and have an identifiable BRCA or LS mutation were included. Data from interviews was coded with constant comparative analysis to develop themes.

RESULTS

Of the eight women, six had selected to undergo either prophylactic hysterectomy or oophorectomy: 5 decided yes to RRGS; 1 decided no; 2 were undecided. Thematic analysis found that the key factors affecting women's decisions around prophylactic surgery were cancer risk, surgical menopause, and psychological readiness. To make an informed decision, women relied most heavily on information provided by healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors, genetic counselors) and family members with prior cancer experience. However, some women reported that they did not feel adequately informed enough to make a decision and identified COVID-19 as a significant barrier affecting access to information.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study revealed the key sources of information influencing attitudes regarding RRGS and how women consulted different sources of information to reach a decision. Results underscore the need for greater attention to women's information needs in the context of psychological readiness, particularly amidst the pandemic. Research involving a larger sample size may help to better inform how support can be provided to individuals with BRCA and LS mutations considering RRGS.

Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prevention

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. There are disparities in the epidemiology of CRC across different populations, most probably due to differences in exposure to lifestyle and environmental factors related to CRC. Prevention is the most effective method for controlling CRC. Primary prevention includes determining and avoiding modifiable risk factors (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, and dietary factors) as well as increasing protective factors (e.g., physical activity, aspirin). Further studies, especially randomized, controlled trials, are needed to clarify the association between CRC incidence and exposure to different risk factors or protective factors. Detection and removal of precancerous colorectal lesions is also an effective strategy for controlling CRC. Multiple factors, both at the individual and community levels (e.g., patient preferences, availability of screening modalities, costs, benefits, and adverse events), should be taken into account in designing and implementing CRC screening programs. Health policymakers should consider the best decision in identifying the starting age and selection of the most effective screening strategies for the target population. This review aims to present updated evidence on the epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of CRC.

Split doses versus whole dose bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A multicentric prospective Lebanese randomized trial between 2021 and 2023

Background and Aims

Bowel preparation is considered as major obstacle before colonoscopy, and it is often reported as the most feared part of the procedure. The aim of this study is to determine the difference in efficacy between a split dose of PEG and the previous day regimen in cleaning the colon, using Boston bowel preparation scale. In addition, also to evaluate patient satisfaction regarding the modality of preparation.

Methods

The study included 200 hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy at Beirut hospitals between 2021 and 2023. One of the two regimens will be prescribed randomly to the patients before colonoscopy: 98 (49%) in Group A (patients treated with PEG preparation as a split dose for 2 days), and 102 (51%) in Group B (patients taking PEG preparation as a whole dose). Data was analyzed using SPSS version 25.

Results

Patients were distributed between 105 (52.5%) males and 95 (47.5%) females. The top two indications for colonoscopy were bleeding (34%), change in bowel habits (constipation/diarrhea) (32%). Patients experienced adverse events noting cramps (48.5%), stomach ache (32%), headache (31%), vomiting (53%), nausea (53%), sleep disturbance (27%), bloating (26.5%), and malaise (26%). A statistically significant difference (p = 0.040) was detected in sleep disturbance: 20.4% of patients in group A and 33.3% of patients in group B. The average satisfaction score was 3.02 ± 1.03 over 4 (Group A) and 3.04 ± 0.99 over 4 (Group B) (p = 0.896). The average BBPS was 8.07 ± 1.14 (Group A) and 8.28 ± 1.0 (Group B) (p = 0.162).

Conclusion

The two administrations were almost similar in term of satisfaction and BBPS. As multiple factors like age, sexe, comorbidities may contribute in altering how much a given drug is safe and efficace, more research is needed to choose the best 3regimen for each patient.

Optimizing Timing of Follow-Up Colonoscopy: A Pilot Cluster Randomized Trial of a Knowledge Translation Tool

BACKGROUND

Endoscopists have low adherence to guideline-recommended colonoscopy surveillance intervals. We performed a cluster-randomized single-blind pilot trial in Winnipeg, Canada, to assess the effectiveness of a newly developed digital application tool that computes guideline-recommended follow-up intervals.

METHODS

Participant endoscopists were randomized to either receive access to the digital application (intervention group) or not receive access (control group). Pathology reports and final recommendations for colonoscopies performed in the 1-4 months before randomization and 3-7 months postrandomization were extracted. Generalized estimating equation models were used to determine whether the access to the digital application predicted guideline congruence.

RESULTS

We included 15 endoscopists in the intervention group and 14 in the control group (of 42 eligible endoscopists in the city), with 343 patients undergoing colonoscopy before randomization and 311 postrandomization. Endoscopists who received the application made guideline-congruent recommendations 67.6% of the time before randomization and 76.1% of the time after randomization. Endoscopists in the control group made guideline-congruent recommendations 72.4% and 72.9% of the time before and after randomization, respectively. Endoscopists in the intervention group trended to have an increase in guideline adherence comparing postintervention with preintervention (odds ratio [OR]: 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-2.74). By contrast, the control group had no change in guideline adherence (OR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.50-2.29). Endoscopists in the intervention group with less than median guideline congruence prerandomization had a significant increase in guideline-congruent recommendations postrandomization.

DISCUSSION

An application that provides colonoscopy surveillance intervals may help endoscopists with guideline congruence, especially those with a lower preintervention congruence with guideline recommendations ( ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT04889352).

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.

Family history of cancer as a potential risk factor for colorectal cancer in EMRO countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The current meta-analysis aims to investigate the existing articles that evaluated the implications of a positive family history of cancer on the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) within the EMRO countries. We employed PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science as search databases for this study. To assess the quality of the selected articles, we utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa (NCO) checklist. In comparing the impact of a family history of cancer between the case and control groups, we computed the odds ratio (OR) along with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Finally, 27 articles were selected for meta-analysis. The result of the meta-analysis showed a significant association between the presence of a family history of CRC or any cancers and CRC (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.54-3.17; P < 0.001, OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.27-2.42; P = 0.001, respectively). Our findings underscore the critical importance of timely screening and early identification for individuals with a family history of cancer. By fostering close coordination among healthcare facilities and actively promoting the adoption of screening methods for early detection, we have the potential to significantly reduce both mortality rates and financial burdens of CRC on the general public, ultimately leading to enhanced patient outcomes.

Personalized Initial Screening Age for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals at Average Risk

Importance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk varies widely in the population at average risk without a family history, but there are no established routines for translating this variation into personalized starting ages of screening.

Objective

To illustrate derivation of risk-adapted starting ages of CRC screening based on the concept of risk advancement period (RAP) using sex and a polygenic risk score (PRS) as an example.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included participants in the UK Biobank study recruited in England, Wales, and Scotland between March 13, 2006, and October 1, 2010. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years, with no previous bowel cancer screening and no family history of CRC. Follow-up of cancer data was completed February 29, 2020, for England and Wales and January 31, 2021, for Scotland. The censoring date for death data was September 30, 2021, for England and Wales and October 31, 2021, for Scotland.

Exposures

Data on age, sex, and family history were collected at the baseline interview. A PRS was calculated based on 139 CRC-related risk loci.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hazard ratios (HRs) of sex and PRS with CRC risk and mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models and were translated to RAPs to quantify how many years of age earlier or later men and individuals in higher or lower PRS deciles would reach risks comparable with those of the reference group (ie, women or those in the 5th and 6th PRS deciles).

Results

Among 242 779 participants (median age, 55 [IQR, 48-61] years; 55.7% women), 2714 incident CRC cases were identified during a median follow-up of 11.2 (IQR, 10.5-11.8) years and 758 deaths during a median follow-up of 12.8 (IQR, 12.0-13.4) years. The HRs of CRC risk were 1.57 (95% CI, 1.46-1.70) for men vs women and ranged from 0.51 (95% CI, 0.41-0.62) to 2.29 (95% CI, 2.01-2.62) across PRS deciles compared with the reference. The RAPs were 5.6 (95% CI, 4.6-6.6) years for men vs women and ranged from -8.4 (95% CI, -11.0 to -5.9) to 10.3 (95% CI, 8.5-12.1) years across PRS deciles compared with the reference deciles. Risk-adapted starting ages of screening would vary by 24 years between men in the highest PRS decile and women in the lowest PRS decile. Similar results were obtained regarding CRC mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this large cohort study including women and men at average risk of CRC, risk-adapted starting ages of screening strongly varied by sex and a PRS. The RAP concept could easily accommodate additional factors for defining personalized starting ages of screening.

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.

Joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE)-Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) clinical practice guidelines on the use of non-invasive biomarkers for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC related mortality. Current screening methods include endoscopy based and biomarker based approaches. This guideline is a joint official statement of the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and the Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE), developed in response to the increasing use of, and accumulating supportive evidence for the role of, non-invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of CRC and its precursor lesions. A systematic review of 678 publications and a two stage Delphi consensus process involving 16 clinicians in various disciplines was undertaken to develop 32 evidence based and expert opinion based recommendations for the use of faecal immunochemical tests, faecal based tumour biomarkers or microbial biomarkers, and blood based tumour biomarkers for the detection of CRC and adenoma. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided on indications, patient selection and strengths and limitations of each screening tool. Future research to inform clinical applications are discussed alongside objective measurement of research priorities. This joint APAGE-APSDE practice guideline is intended to provide an up-to-date guide to assist clinicians worldwide in utilising non-invasive biomarkers for CRC screening; it has particular salience for clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.

A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p  =  0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.

Overall and age-specific risk advancement periods of colorectal cancer for men vs women: Implications for gender-sensitive screening offers?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are higher among men than among women. We aimed to estimate overall and age-specific risk advancement periods (RAPs) for men compared to women, which quantify how many years earlier comparable levels of risk are reached by men. RAPs were derived by Cox regression models among 331 224 participants aged 40 to 69 at baseline of the UK Biobank with no previous diagnosis of CRC and no previous CRC screening examination who were followed with respect to CRC incidence for up to 13 years. Men were at substantially higher risk of CRC than women in age groups 50 to 59 and 60 to 69, with RAPs (95% confidence intervals) as high as 8.7 (4.5-13.0) and 6.2 (4.5-7.9), respectively. These RAPs were higher than those for family history of CRC in these age groups. By contrast, no significant sex difference but a major impact of family history was seen in age group 40 to 49 (P-value for interaction between sex and age = .00079). The observed patterns suggest that consideration of gender-specific starting ages of screening might be warranted in countries in which screening offers start at ages above 50 years.

At What Age Should We Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening? When Is Enough, Enough?

There is strong evidence that colorectal cancer screening can reduce both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Guidelines recommend screening for individuals age 45 to 75 years, but are less certain about the benefits after age 75 years. Dalmat and colleagues provide evidence that individuals with a prior negative colonoscopy 10 years or more prior to reaching age 76 to 85 years, had a low risk of colorectal cancer, and would be less likely to benefit from further screening. It is important to note that this study population did not include individuals with a family history of colon cancer or a personal history of having high-risk adenomas. These data suggest that a negative colonoscopy can be an effective risk-stratification tool when discussing further screening with elderly patients. See related article by Dalmat et al., p. 37.

Characteristics of Interval Colorectal Cancer: A Canadian Retrospective Population-Level Analysis from Newfoundland and Labrador

Interval colorectal cancers (I-CRCs) arise during the interval time period between scheduled colonoscopies. Predicting which patients are at risk of I-CRCs remains an elusive undertaking, but evidence would suggest that most I-CRCs arise from lesions missed on index endoscopy. The procedural factors that lead to missed lesions are numerous and lack consensus in the literature. In Canada, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest incidence of CRCs. In this study our aim was to examine I-CRCs (3-60 months after last colonoscopy) in NL through a population-level analysis covering 67% of the province from 2001-2018. We estimated the I-CRC rate to be up to 9.3%. Median age of I-CRC diagnosis was 67.1 years with an interval time of 2.9 years. About 57% of these tumors occurred proximal to the splenic flexure, with 53% presenting as local disease. No temporal differences were observed in interval time or tumor distribution. On univariate and multivariable logistical regression, risk of right-sided I-CRC did not correlate to the index colonoscopy indication, bowel preparation quality, size of largest polyp removed, colonoscopy completion rate, or stage at presentation. Improvements in synoptic reporting utilization and national registries are needed to identity risk factors and reduce I-CRC frequency.

Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.

RESULTS

SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Association between A Family History of Colorectal Cancer and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Large-scale Asian studies on this topic are lacking. We evaluated the CRC risk associated with family history in the Korean population. We analyzed the data of participants aged ≥40 years who underwent national cancer screening between 2013 and 2014. During a mean follow-up of 4.7 ± 0.8 years, 0.43% of the 292,467 participants with family history and 0.28% of the 1,169,868 participants without family history developed CRC. Participants with a family history in any FDR, parents only, and siblings only had a higher risk of CRC than those without family history; adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.53, 1.46, and 1.61, respectively. Participants with a family history comprising both parents and siblings had an even higher risk of CRC than those without a family history (HR, 2.34). The HRs for CRC in the 40−49, 50−59, 60−69, 70−79, and ≥80 age groups with family history were 1.72, 1.74, 1.50, 1.30, and 0.78, respectively (p < 0.001). A family history of CRC in any FDR and both parents and siblings was associated with an approximately 1.5- and 2.3-fold increased risk of CRC. The effect of family history was relatively greater in the younger than the older age group.

Colorectal cancer risk in association with colorectal cancer as a second malignancy in relatives: a nationwide cohort study

Background

Increasing number of individuals will have first-degree relatives (FDRs) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC), as a second primary malignancy (CRCa-2) after a non-CRC cancer. We aimed to estimate whether and to what extent a family history of CRCa-2 is associated with an increased CRC risk.

Methods

In this Swedish nationwide cohort study, rate ratio (RR) and cumulative incidence of CRC were estimated among 172,531 individuals with a family history of CRC as a first primary malignancy (CRCa-1) and 17,830 with a family history of CRCa-2, respectively, using individuals without cancer family history as the reference group.

Results

A cumulative incidence of CRC by age 80 was 6.3 and 5.6% for individuals with a parental and a sibling family history of CRCa-2, respectively. RRs of CRC for one FDR diagnosed with CRCa-1 and CRCa-2 were respectively 1.72 (95% CI, 1.65–1.79) and 1.50 (1.32–1.70); the latter RR was lower than the former (P = 0.0356), but no difference was observed after adjusting age of diagnosis of CRC in FDR and family relationship (P = 0.6898). Increased RRs were found to be associated with a CRCa-2 diagnosis in FDR that occured after cancers in upper aerodigestive tract, breast, prostate, kidney and nervous system.

Conclusions

Individuals who have relatives with CRCa-2 have an increased risk of CRC, but the magnitude is lower than those having relatives with CRCa-1, which is related to different ages of diagnosis of CRC in FDR and family relationships.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10000-z.

Uptake and Short-term Outcomes of High-risk Screening Colonoscopy Billing Codes: A Population-based Study Among Young Adults

Background

Persons suspected or confirmed with familial colorectal cancer syndrome are recommended to have biennial colonoscopy from late adolescence or early adulthood. Persons without a syndrome but with one or more affected first-degree relatives are recommended to begin colonoscopy 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative, and every 5 to 10 years. Ontario introduced colonoscopy billing codes for these two indications in 2011.

Methods

We identified persons in Ontario under 50 years of age, without a prior history of colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease, with one or more of these billing claims between 2013 and 2017. We described the index colonoscopy, and subsequent colonoscopy up-to-date status. We computed average annual rates of colorectal and other cancer diagnoses, and displayed mean cumulative function plots, stratified by billing code, age and sex.

Results

Billing claims for ‘familial syndrome’ high-risk screening colonoscopy were identified among 14,846 persons; the average annual rate of CRC diagnoses was 38.6 per 100,000 among males and 22.2 among females. Colonoscopy up-to-date status fell to 50% within 7 years. Billing claims for ‘first-degree relative’ screening colonoscopy was identified among 49,505 persons; average annual rates of CRC diagnoses were 16.3 among males and 13.5 per 100,000 among females, respectively.

Conclusion

Colorectal cancer was more frequent following billing claims for high-risk screening colonoscopy for familial syndromes, as were noncolorectal malignancies potentially associated with these syndromes. This billing claim for familial colorectal cancer syndrome colonoscopy appears to identify a group at elevated short-term risk for cancer.

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.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Approach to the Use of Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening Options: Commentary

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update Commentary is to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding the approach to using noninvasive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options, including evidence for their effectiveness, selection of individuals for whom these tests are appropriate, implications of a positive non-colonoscopy screening test, and opportunities to enhance the quality of noninvasive CRC screening programs. This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee 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 Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary reflects recently published studies in this field, as well as the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with high-level expertise in CRC screening and prevention.

Evaluation of the polyp-based resect and discard strategy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Standard colonoscopy practice requires removal and histological characterization of almost all detected small (< 10 mm) and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps. This study aimed to test a simplified polyp-based resect and discard (PBRD) strategy that assigns surveillance intervals based only on size and number of small/diminutive polyps, without the need for pathology examination.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was performed on patients enrolled in a prospective study. The primary outcome was surveillance interval agreement of the PBRD strategy with pathology-based management according to 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force guidelines. Chart analysis also evaluated clinician adherence to pathology-based recommendations. One-sided testing was performed with a null-hypothesis of 90 % agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals and a two-sided 96.7 % confidence interval (CI) using correction for multiple testing.

RESULTS

452 patients were included in the study. Surveillance intervals assigned using the PBRD strategy were correct in 97.8 % (96.7 %CI 96.3-99.3 %) of patients compared with pathology-based management. The PBRD strategy reduced pathology examinations by 58.7 % while providing 87.8 % of patients with immediate surveillance interval recommendations on the day of colonoscopy, compared with 47.1 % when using pathology-based management. Chart analysis of surveillance interval assignments showed 63.3 % adherence to pathology-based guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The PBRD strategy surpassed the 90 % agreement with the pathology-based standard for determining surveillance interval, reduced the need for pathology examinations, and increased the proportion of patients receiving immediate surveillance interval recommendations. The PBRD strategy does not require expertise in optical diagnosis and may replace histological characterization of small and diminutive colorectal polyps.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Importance of Family History of Colorectal Carcinoma In Situ Versus Invasive Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore the risk of invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) in relatives of patients with colorectal carcinoma in situ (CCIS), which is lacking in the literature.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We collected data from Swedish family-cancer datasets and calculated standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and cumulative risk of CRC in family histories of CCIS in first- and second-degree relatives. Family history was defined as a dynamic (time-dependent) variable allowing for changes during the follow-up period from 1958 to 2015. Of 12,829,251 individuals with available genealogical data, 173,796 were diagnosed with CRC and 40,558 with CCIS.

RESULTS

The lifetime (0-79 years) cumulative risk of CRC in first-degree relatives of patients with CCIS was 6.5%, which represents a 1.6-fold (95% CI, 1.5-1.7; n=752) increased risk. A similarly increased lifetime cumulative risk (6.7%) was found among first-degree relatives of patients with CRC (SIR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.6-1.7; n=6,965). An increased risk of CRC was also found in half-siblings of patients with CCIS (SIR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0; n=18) and also in half-siblings of patients with CRC (SIR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; n=78). Moreover, the increased risk of CRC was higher for younger age at diagnosis of CCIS in the affected first-degree relative and for younger age at diagnosis of CRC in the index person.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study show that first-degree relatives and half-siblings of patients with CCIS have an increased risk of CRC, which is comparable in magnitude to the risk of those with a family history of invasive CRC. These findings extend available evidence on familial risk of CRC and may help to refine guidelines and recommendations for CRC screening.

Reporting quality of practice guidelines on colorectal cancer: evaluation using the RIGHT reporting checklist

Background

Clinical practice guidelines are an essential tool for translating evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist assists to guide the reporting in guidelines. We used RIGHT to assess the reporting completeness and quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

We searched the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) from January 1st, 2018 to December 1st, 2020 for guidelines on CRC. Websites of guideline development organizations were also searched. Two investigators assessed the reporting quality of the included guidelines, and calculated the numbers of guidelines that were compliant with each RIGHT checklist item and the mean proportions of reported items for each of the seven RIGHT checklist domains.

Results

Twenty-seven colorectal guidelines were included. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 71.0% for Basic information, 66.2% for Background, 45.9% for Evidence, 68.8% for Recommendations, 24.1% for Review and quality assurance, 33.3% for Funding and declaration and management of interests, and 40.7% for Other information.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of colorectal guidelines was moderate. A systematic use of the RIGHT checklist during the development process could improve the reporting quality of guidelines in the future.

Clinical care pathway program versus open-access system: a study on appropriateness, quality, and efficiency in the delivery of colonoscopy in the colorectal cancer

Open-access colonoscopy (OAC), whereby the colonoscopy is performed without a prior office visit with a gastroenterologist, is affected by inappropriateness which leads to overprescription and reduced availability of the procedure in case of alarming symptoms. The clinical care pathway (CCP) is a healthcare management tool promoted by national health systems to organize work-up of various morbidities. Recently, we started a CCP dedicated to colorectal cancer (CRC), including a colonoscopy session for CRC diagnosis and prevention. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness, the quality, and the efficiency in the delivery of colonoscopy with the open-access system and a CCP program in the CRC. Quality indicators for colonoscopy in subjects in the CCP were compared to referrals by general practitioners (OAC) or by non-gastroenterologist physicians (non-gastroenterologist physician colonoscopy, NGPC). Attendance rate to colonoscopy was greater in the CCP group and NGPC group than in the OAC group (99%, 99%, and 86%, respectively). Waiting time in the CCP group was shorter than in the OAC group (3.88 ± 2.27 vs. 32 ± 22.31 weeks, respectively). Appropriateness of colonoscopy prescription was better in the CCP group than in the OAC group (92 vs. 50%, respectively). OAC is affected by the lack of timeliness and low appropriateness of prescription. A CCP reduces the number of inappropriate colonoscopies, especially for post-polypectomy surveillance, and improves the delivery of colonoscopy in patients requiring a fast-track examination. The high rate of inappropriate OAC suggests that this modality of healthcare should be widely reviewed.

Variation in the risk of colorectal cancer in families with Lynch syndrome: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Existing clinical practice guidelines for carriers of pathogenic variants of DNA mismatch repair genes (Lynch syndrome) are based on the mean age-specific cumulative risk (penetrance) of colorectal cancer for all carriers of pathogenic variants in the same gene. We aimed to estimate the variation in the penetrance of colorectal cancer between carriers of pathogenic variants in the same gene by sex and continent of residence.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we sourced data from the International Mismatch Repair Consortium, which comprises 273 members from 122 research centres or clinics in 32 countries from six continents who are involved in Lynch syndrome research. Families with at least three members and at least one confirmed carrier of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a DNA mismatch repair gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2) were included. The families of probands with known de-novo pathogenic variants were excluded. Data were collected on the method of ascertainment of the family, sex, carrier status, cancer diagnoses, and ages at the time of pedigree collection and at last contact or death. We used a segregation analysis conditioned on ascertainment to estimate the mean penetrance of colorectal cancer and modelled unmeasured polygenic factors to estimate the variation in penetrance. The existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers was tested by use of a Wald p value for the null hypothesis that the polygenic SD is zero.

FINDINGS

5585 families with Lynch syndrome from 22 countries were eligible for the analysis. Of these, there were insufficient numbers to estimate penetrance for Asia and South America, and for those with EPCAM variants. Therefore, we used data (collected between July 11, 2014, and Dec 31, 2018) from 5255 families (1829 MLH1, 2179 MSH2, 798 MSH6, and 449 PMS2), comprising 79 809 relatives, recruited in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Australasia. There was strong evidence of the existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers (p<0·0001 for each of the three three continents). These familial risk factors resulted in a wide within-gene variation in the risk of colorectal cancer for men and women from each continent who all carried pathogenic variants in the same gene or the MSH2 c.942+3A>T variant. The variation was especially prominent for MLH1 and MSH2 variant carriers, depending on gene, sex and continent, with 7-56% of carriers having a colorectal cancer penetrance of less than 20%, 9-44% having a penetrance of more than 80%, and only 10-19% having a penetrance of 40-60%.

INTERPRETATION

Our study findings highlight the important role of risk modifiers, which could lead to personalised risk assessments for precision prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer for people with Lynch syndrome.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

Early colorectal cancer detection-Current and evolving challenges in evidence, guidelines, policy, and practices

The understanding at the beginning of the last century that colorectal cancer began as a localized disease that progressed and became systemic, and that most colorectal cancer arose from adenomatous polyps gave rise to aggressive attempts at curative treatment and eventually attempts to detect advanced lesions before they progressed to invasive disease. In the last four decades, steadily greater uptake of screening has led to reductions in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, the fullest potential of screening is not being met due to the lack of organized screening, where a systems approach could lead to higher rates of screening of average and high risk groups, higher quality screening, and prompt followup of adults with positive screening tests. ABSTRACT: Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a general understanding that colorectal cancer is a clonal disease that progresses from a localized stage with a favorable prognosis through progressively more advanced stages which have progressively worse prognosis. That understanding led first to determined efforts to detect and treat early stage symptomatic disease, and then to detect pre-symptomatic colorectal cancer and precursor lesions, where there was hope that the natural history of the disease could be arrested and the incidence and premature mortality of colorectal cancer averted. Toward the end of the last century, guidelines for colorectal cancer screening, growth in the number of technical options for screening, and a steady increase in the proportion of the adult population who attended screening contributed to the beginning of a significant decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Despite this progress, colorectal cancer remains the third leading cause of death among men and women in the United States. Screening for early detection of precursor lesions and localized cancer offers the single most productive opportunity to further reduce the burden of disease, and yet nearly four in five deaths from colorectal cancer are associated with having never been screened, not recently screened, or not followed up for an abnormal screening test. This simple observation is a call to action in all communities to apply existing knowledge to fulfill the potential to prevent avertable incidence and mortality.

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.

Hereditary colorectal cancer screening: A 10-year longitudinal cohort study following an educational intervention

Family history (FH) of a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with two to fourfold increased risk, yet screening uptake is suboptimal despite proven mortality reduction. We developed a FH-based CRC Risk Triage/Management tool for family physicians (FPs), and educational booklet for patients with CRC FH. This report describes physician referral and patient screening behavior 5 and 10 years post-educational intervention, and factors associated with screening. Longitudinal cohort study. FPs/patients in Ontario and Newfoundland, Canada were sent questionnaires at baseline (2005), 5 and 10 years (2015) following tool/booklet receipt. FPs were asked about CRC screening, patients about FH, screening type and timing. "Correct" screening was concordance with tool recommendations. Results reported for 29/121 (24%) FPs and 98/297 (33%) patients who completed all 3 questionnaires. Over 10 years 2/3 patients received the correct CRC screening test at appropriate timing (baseline 75%, 5-year 62%, 10-year 65%). About half reported their FP recommended CRC screening (5-year 51%, 10-year 63%). Fewer than half the patients correctly assessed their CRC risk (44%, 40%, 41%). Patients were less likely to have correct screening timing if female (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.61, 0.99; p = 0.045). Patients were less likely to have both correct test and timing if moderate/high CRC risk (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47, 0.93; p = 0.017) and more likely if their physician recommended screening (RR1.69; 95% CI 1.15, 2.49; p = 0.007). Physician discussion of CRC risk and screening can positively impact patient screening behavior. Efforts are particularly needed for women and patients at moderate/high CRC risk.

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.

Prevalence of a First-Degree Relative With Colorectal Cancer and Uptake of Screening Among Persons 40 to 54 Years Old

BACKGROUND & AIMS

People with a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) are recommended to start CRC screening at age 40. However, there is limited information on how many people in different age groups have a known family history of CRC and how many of them have had a colonoscopy.

METHODS

We set up a multicenter, cross-sectional, population-based study in Germany to determine what proportions of persons in age groups from 40 to 54 years old have a known family history of CRC. We invited 160,000 persons to participate in an online survey from 2015 through 2016. We investigated what proportions of persons in each age group reported a family history of CRC and what proportions of persons underwent a colonoscopy examination using descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 28,711 responders to the online questionnaire (8428 were age 40-44 years, 9879 were age 45-49 years, and 10,404 were age 50-54 years), 2705 stated that they had a first-degree relative with CRC (9.4%). The prevalence of a first-degree relative with CRC increased with age: 7.5%, 9.6%, and 10.9% for people 40 to 44 years old, 45 to 49 years old, and 50 to 54 years old, respectively. The prevalence of a first-degree relative who received a diagnosis of CRC at age 70 years or older increased steadily with each age group. Although a greater proportion of people with a family history of CRC had undergone a colonoscopy examination (54.5%) than people without a family history of CRC (25.7%; P < .0001), large proportions of people within this risk group were not in compliance with the guidelines (54.8%, 47.6%, and 38.6% for ages 40-44 y, 45-49 y, and 50-54 y, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 10 persons in Germany age 40 to 54 years old has a first-degree relative with CRC. Guidelines recommend initiation of screening at ages 40 to 45 years for people with a family history, yet at this age many people do not have a family history of CRC yet, and almost half of persons 40 to 54 years old with a family history of CRC have not yet received a screening colonoscopy.

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.

Evidenced-Based Screening Strategies for a Positive Family History

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

Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer Tied to Advanced Colorectal Polyps: An Untapped Opportunity to Screen First-Degree Relatives and Decrease Cancer Burden

Advanced adenomas represent a subset of colorectal polyps that are known to confer an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia to the affected individual and their first-degree relatives (FDRs). Accordingly, professional guidelines suggest earlier and more intensive screening for FDRs of those with advanced adenomas similar to FDRs of those with colorectal cancer (CRC). Although the risk to family members is less clear among patients with advanced serrated polyps, they are often considered in the same category. Unfortunately, there is a growing concern that patients, endoscopists, and primary care providers are unaware of the familial risk associated with these polyps, leaving a wide gap in screening these high-risk individuals. Herein, we propose a standardized language around advanced colorectal polyps and present a detailed review of the literature on associated familial risk. We outline the challenges to implementing the current screening recommendations and suggest approaches to overcome these limitations, including a proposed new colonoscopy quality metric to capture communication of familial CRC risk. Improving screening in these high-risk groups has the potential to substantially reduce the burden of CRC.

Calculating the Starting Age for Screening in Relatives of Patients With Colorectal Cancer Based on Data From Large Nationwide Data Sets

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines acknowledge the need for earlier screening for high-risk individuals, such as those with family history of CRC, there is limited information on how many years earlier these high-risk individuals should be screened; current practice is based on weak evidence. We aimed to provide risk-adapted recommendations on the starting age of CRC screening for individuals with different family histories.

METHODS

We collected data from nationwide family-cancer data sets in Sweden and calculated risk-adapted starting ages of screening for individuals with different family histories of CRC. Family history was defined as a dynamic (time-dependent) variable, allowing for changes during the follow-up period of 1958 through 2015.

RESULTS

During a follow-up of 12,829,251 individuals with genealogy information, 173,796 developed CRC. The 10-year cumulative risk for the average-risk population at age 50 years (the guideline-recommended age for screening) was 0.44%. Individuals with different family histories of CRC attained this equivalent 0.44% risk 3-29 years earlier than their peers in the general population without such a family history. For example, individuals with 1 affected first-degree relative diagnosed before age 45 years reached the corresponding risk level 16 years earlier.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined risk-adapted starting ages of CRC screening for close or distant relatives of patients with CRC, using high quality nationwide data sets. These findings might be used in counselling individuals about the appropriate age to start CRC screening, to optimize screening practice, and to supplement guidelines for CRC screening.

Family history of colorectal cancer and prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic screened populations in different age groups

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The clinical significance of a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) in first-degree relatives (FDRs) in CRC screening stratified by different age groups of screened individuals is not fully understood. We investigated the relationship between FH and the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) in screened individuals in different age groups.

METHODS

Data from screened individuals aged 40 to 54 years (n = 2263) and 55 to 69 years (n = 2621) who underwent their first-ever screening colonoscopy were analyzed. The relationship between FH and ACN was examined, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis incorporating other baseline characteristics was performed.

RESULTS

Among individuals aged 40 to 54 years, the prevalence of ACN was significantly higher in 249 individuals with affected FDRs than in those without (5.6% vs 1.6%; P < .01), with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-7.0; P < .01); the prevalence was particularly high in those having FDRs with CRC mortality (7.3%). Among individuals aged 55 to 69 years, the prevalence of ACN was not significantly different between 291 individuals with affected FDRs and those without (5.8% vs 5.8%; P = .95); however, individuals with 2 FDRs with CRC and mortality showed a high prevalence of ACN (17.4% and 42.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

An FH of CRC in FDRs was associated with a higher prevalence of ACN in younger individuals, with a particularly high impact of FH of CRC mortality. In contrast, the impact of FH was weaker in older individuals except those having 2 FDRs with CRC or mortality.

Potential impact of family history-based screening guidelines on the detection of early-onset colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Initiating screening at an earlier age based on cancer family history is one of the primary recommended strategies for the prevention and detection of early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), but data supporting the effectiveness of this approach are limited. The authors assessed the performance of family history-based guidelines for identifying individuals with EOCRC.

METHODS

The authors conducted a population-based, case-control study of individuals aged 40 to 49 years with (2473 individuals) and without (772 individuals) incident CRC in the Colon Cancer Family Registry from 1998 through 2007. They estimated the sensitivity and specificity of family history-based criteria jointly recommended by the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC, and the American College of Radiology in 2008 for early screening, and the age at which each participant could have been recommended screening initiation if these criteria had been applied.

RESULTS

Family history-based early screening criteria were met by approximately 25% of cases (614 of 2473 cases) and 10% of controls (74 of 772 controls), with a sensitivity of 25% and a specificity of 90% for identifying EOCRC cases aged 40 to 49 years. Among 614 individuals meeting early screening criteria, 98.4% could have been recommended screening initiation at an age younger than the observed age of diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Of CRC cases aged 40 to 49 years, 1 in 4 met family history-based early screening criteria, and nearly all cases who met these criteria could have had CRC diagnosed earlier (or possibly even prevented) if earlier screening had been implemented as per family history-based guidelines. Additional strategies are needed to improve the detection and prevention of EOCRC for individuals not meeting family history criteria for early screening.

Consensus statement of the Italian society of colorectal surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of hemorrhoidal disease

Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is the most common proctological disease in the Western countries. However, its real prevalence is underestimated due to the frequent self-medication.The aim of this consensus statement is to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of HD. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE.These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive.The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by American College of Chest Physicians. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

Use of Family History and Genetic Testing to Determine Risk of Colorectal Cancer

Approximately 35% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have a family history of the disease attributed to genetic factors, common exposures, or both. Some families with a history of CRC carry genetic variants that cause CRC with high or moderate penetrance, but these account for only 5% to 10% of CRC cases. Most families with a history of CRC and/or adenomas do not carry genetic variants associated with cancer syndromes; this is called common familial CRC. Our understanding of familial predisposition to CRC and cancer syndromes has increased rapidly due to advances in next-generation sequencing technologies. As a result, there has been a shift from genetic testing for specific inherited cancer syndromes based on clinical criteria alone, to simultaneous testing of multiple genes for cancer-associated variants. We summarize current knowledge of common familial CRC, provide an update on syndromes associated with CRC (including the nonpolyposis and polyposis types), and review current recommendations for CRC screening and surveillance. We also provide an approach to genetic evaluation and testing in clinical practice. Determination of CRC risk based on family cancer history and results of genetic testing can provide a personalized approach to cancer screening and prevention, with optimal use of colonoscopy to effectively decrease CRC incidence and mortality.

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.

Colorectal carcinoma screening: Established methods and emerging technology

Colorectal carcinoma screening programs have shown success in lowering both the incidence and mortality rate of colorectal carcinoma at a population level, in part because this carcinoma is relatively slow growing and has an identifiable premalignant lesion. Still, many patients do not undergo the recommended screening for colorectal carcinoma, and of those who do, a subset may be over- or under-diagnosed by the currently available testing methods. The primary purpose of this article is to review the data regarding currently available colorectal cancer screening modalities, which include fecal occult blood testing, direct colonic visualization, and noninvasive imaging techniques. In addition, readers will be introduced to a variety of biomarkers that may serve as stand-alone or adjunct tests in the future. Finally, there is a brief discussion of the current epidemiologic considerations that public health officials must address as they create population screening guidelines. The data we provide as laboratory physicians and scientists are critical to the construction of appropriate recommendations that ultimately decrease the burden of disease from colorectal carcinoma.