Colonoscopy Screening and Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality. Reply

Contributions of early detection and cancer prevention to colorectal cancer mortality reduction by screening colonoscopy: a validated modeling study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Screening colonoscopy, recommended every 10 years, reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) by early detection of prevalent but undiagnosed CRC, as well as by removal of precursor lesions. The aim of this study was to assess the relative contribution of both components to total CRC mortality reduction over time.

METHODS

Using a validated multistate Markov model, we simulated hypothetical cohorts of 100,000 individuals aged 55 to 64 years with and without screening at baseline. Main outcomes included proportions of prevented CRC deaths arising from (asymptomatic) CRC already present at baseline and from newly developed CRC during 15 years of follow-up, and mortality rate ratios of screened versus nonscreened groups over time.

RESULTS

Early detection of prevalent cases accounted for 52%, 30%, and 18% of deaths prevented by screening colonoscopy within 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Relative reduction of mortality was estimated to be much larger for mortality from incident cancers than for mortality from cancers that were already present and detected early at screening endoscopy and for total CRC mortality (ie, 88% versus 67% and 79%, respectively, within 10 years from screening).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction of CRC mortality mainly arises from early detection of prevalent cancers during the early years after screening colonoscopy, but prevention of incident cases accounts for the majority of prevented deaths in the longer run. Prevention of incident cases leads to sustained strong reduction of CRC mortality, possibly warranting an extension of screening intervals.

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.

Objective

To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.

Intervention

Invitation to endoscopic screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.

Results

This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Instrumental variables methods reconcile intention-to-screen effects across pragmatic cancer screening trials

Pragmatic cancer screening trials mimic real-world scenarios in which patients and doctors are the ultimate arbiters of treatment. Intention-to-screen (ITS) analyses of such trials maintain randomization-based apples-to-apples comparisons, but differential adherence (the failure of subjects assigned to screening to get screened) makes ITS effects hard to compare across trials and sites. We show how instrumental variables (IV) methods address the nonadherence challenge in a comparison of estimates from 17 sites in five randomized trials measuring screening effects on colorectal cancer incidence. While adherence rates and ITS estimates vary widely across and within trials, IV estimates of per-protocol screening effects are remarkably consistent. An application of simple IV tools, including graphical analysis and formal statistical tests, shows how differential adherence explains variation in ITS impact. Screening compliers are also shown to have demographic characteristics similar to those of the full trial study sample. These findings argue for the clinical relevance of IV estimates of cancer screening effects.