Realizing the Promise of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Screening in Practice

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.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer in the USA: a prospective cohort study

Background

Effective risk stratification tools for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer (PPCRC) are lacking. We aimed to develop an effective risk stratification tool for the prediction of PPCRC in three large population-based cohorts and to validate the tool in a clinical cohort.

Methods

Leveraging the integrated endoscopic, histopathologic and epidemiologic data in three U.S population-based cohorts of health professional (the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) I, II and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS)), we developed a risk score to predict incident PPCRC among 26,741 patients with a polypectomy between 1986 and 2017. We validated the PPCRC score in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) Colonoscopy Cohort (Boston, Massachusetts, U.S) of 76,603 patients with a polypectomy between 2007 and 2018. In all four cohorts, we collected detailed data on patients' demographics, endoscopic history, polyp features, and lifestyle factors at polypectomy. The outcome, incidence of PPCRC, was assessed by biennial follow-up questionnaires in the NHS/HPFS cohorts, and through linkage to the Massachusetts Cancer Registry in the MGB cohort. In all four cohorts, individuals who were diagnosed with CRC or died before baseline or within six months after baseline were excluded. We used Cox regression to calculate the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and assessed the discrimination using C-statistics and reclassification using the Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI).

Findings

During a median follow-up of 12.8 years (interquartile range (IQR): 9.3, 16.7) and 5.1 years (IQR: 2.7, 7.8) in the NHS/HPFS and MGB cohorts, we documented 220 and 241 PPCRC cases, respectively. We identified a PPCRC risk score based on 11 predictors. In the validation cohort, the PPCRC risk score showed a strong association with PPCRC risk (HR for high vs. low, 3.55, 95% CI, 2.59-4.88) and demonstrated a C-statistic (95% CI) of 0.75 (0.70-0.79), and was discriminatory even within the low- and high-risk polyp groups (C-statistic, 0.73 and 0.71, respectively) defined by the current colonoscopy surveillance recommendations, leading to a NRI of 45% (95% CI, 36-54%) for patients with PPCRC.

Interpretation

We developed and validated a risk stratification model for PPCRC that may be useful to guide tailored colonoscopy surveillance. Further work is needed to determine the optimal surveillance interval and test the added value of other predictors of PPCRC beyond those included in the current study, along with implementation studies.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Machine Learning in Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction from Routinely Collected Data: A Review

The inclusion of machine-learning-derived models in systematic reviews of risk prediction models for colorectal cancer is rare. Whilst such reviews have highlighted methodological issues and limited performance of the models included, it is unclear why machine-learning-derived models are absent and whether such models suffer similar methodological problems. This scoping review aims to identify machine-learning models, assess their methodology, and compare their performance with that found in previous reviews. A literature search of four databases was performed for colorectal cancer prediction and prognosis model publications that included at least one machine-learning model. A total of 14 publications were identified for inclusion in the scoping review. Data was extracted using an adapted CHARM checklist against which the models were benchmarked. The review found similar methodological problems with machine-learning models to that observed in systematic reviews for non-machine-learning models, although model performance was better. The inclusion of machine-learning models in systematic reviews is required, as they offer improved performance despite similar methodological omissions; however, to achieve this the methodological issues that affect many prediction models need to be addressed.

Polygenic Risk Score for Defining Personalized Surveillance Intervals After Adenoma Detection and Removal at Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could help to define personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a PRS, along with adenoma characteristics, could help to define more personalized and risk-adapted surveillance intervals.

METHODS

In a population-based, case-control study from Germany, detailed information on previous colonoscopies and a PRS based on 140 CRC-related, single-nucleotide polymorphisms was obtained from 4696 CRC cases and 3709 controls. Participants were classified as having low, medium, or high genetic risk according to tertiles of PRSs among controls. We calculated the absolute risk of CRC based on the PRS and colonoscopy history and findings.

RESULTS

We observed major variations of CRC risk according to the PRS, including among individuals with detection and removal of adenomas at colonoscopy. For instance, the estimated 10-year absolute risk of CRC for 50-year-old men and women with no polyps, for whom repeat screening colonoscopy is recommended after 10 years only, was 0.2%. Equivalent absolute risks were estimated for people with low-risk adenomas and low PRS. However, the same levels of absolute risk were reached within 3 to 5 years by those with low-risk adenomas and high PRS and with high-risk adenomas irrespective of the PRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of genetic predisposition to CRC risk, as determined by a PRS, could help to define personalized, risk-adapted surveillance intervals after detection and removal of adenomas at screening colonoscopy. However, whether the risk variation is strong enough to direct clinical risk stratification needs to be explored further.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Clinical Characteristics Influence Advanced Neoplasia Risk After Colorectal Polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Postpolypectomy risk stratification for subsequent metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN) is imprecise and does not account for colonoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR). Our aim was to assess association of ADR with MAN and create a prediction model for postpolypectomy risk stratification incorporating ADR and other factors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals with baseline polypectomy and subsequent surveillance colonoscopy from 2004 to 2016 within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Clinical factors, polyp findings, and baseline colonoscopist ADR were considered for the model. Model performance (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve) for identifying individuals with MAN was compared with 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) surveillance recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 30,897 individuals were randomly assigned 2:1 into independent model training and validation sets. Increasing age, male sex, diabetes, current smoking, adenoma number, polyp location, adenoma ≥10 mm or with tubulovillous/villous features, and decreasing colonoscopist ADR were independently associated with MAN. A range of 1.48- to 1.66-fold increased risk for MAN was observed for ADR in the lowest 3 quintiles (ADR <19.7%-39.3%) vs the highest quintile (ADR >47.0%). When the final model selected based on the training set was applied to the validation set, improved sensitivity and specificity over 2020 USMSTF risk stratification were achieved (P = .001), with an area under the curve of 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopist ADR is associated with MAN. Combining clinical factors and ADR for risk stratification has potential to improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. Improving ADR is likely to improve postpolypectomy outcomes.