Diagnostic Performance of One-off Flexible Sigmoidoscopy with Fecal Immunochemical Testing in a Large Screening Population:

The underestimated preventive effects of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: re-analysis and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is less invasive, resource intensive and costly than colonoscopy, is among the recommended screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC). Four large randomized trials consistently reported statistically significant, albeit modest effects of screening by FS on CRC incidence. However, their effect estimates included cancers that were already prevalent at recruitment and could not have been prevented by screening. We performed a re-analysis and meta-analysis of two of the trials (including the largest one) to estimate reduction of truly incident cases by a single FS offered between 55 and 64 years of age among the "at risk study population" without prevalent CRC at recruitment. In meta-analyses of data reported after more than 15 years of follow-up, relative risk (95% CI) in intention-to-screen and per-protocol analyses were 0.71 (0.66-0.76) and 0.59 (0.55-0.65) for any CRC, and 0.52 (0.47-0.57) and 0.34 (0.30-0.39) for distal CRC, respectively. These results indicate much stronger effects than those suggested by the original reports and imply that a single screening FS can prevent approximately two out of three distal incident CRC cases within 15 + years of follow-up.

Combined performance of fecal immunochemical tests and a genetic risk score for advanced neoplasia detection

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are increasingly used as noninvasive screening tests in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are increasingly propagated for risk stratification in CRC screening. We aimed to assess the potential of combining FIT results and PRS to enhance diagnostic accuracy of detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) compared to using FIT results alone. Of 10,362 participants of screening colonoscopy in Southern Germany who conducted either one of two quantitative FITs, genotyping was done in all participants with advanced neoplasia (CRC or advanced adenoma) and a random subset of controls. Among 5,306 individuals, a PRS was calculated based on the number of risk alleles in 140 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Partial areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves (pAUCs) were computed for FIT and PRS alone and combined, focusing on a specificity range of 100%-80%. Both FITs showed similar performance characteristics with pAUCs (95%CIs) of 0.661 (0.625-0.698) (Ridascreen Hemoglobin) and 0.682 (0.661-0.701) (FOB Gold) for AN detection. PRS alone reached a pAUC (95%CI) of 0.524 (0.499-0.550) and 0.530 (0.516-0.545), respectively, and its addition to FIT did not improve pAUCs (0.659 (0.622-0.697) and 0.667 (0.650-0.687), respectively). This finding was confirmed by investigating sensitivities at fixed specificities at 85%, 90% and 95%. Partial AUCs also did not improve when adding the weighted PRS to FIT instead of the unweighted PRS. In summary, the combination with PRS did not improve diagnostic accuracy of FIT-based screening in a large asymptomatic CRC screening population from South-Western Germany.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

Impact of Inadequate Bowel Cleansing on Colonoscopic Findings in Routine Screening Practice

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is an imperfect gold standard for detecting colorectal neoplasms because some proportion of adenomas may be missed, mainly small lesions. This proportion is expected to be higher in case of inadequate bowel cleansing, which is frequently seen in routine practice. We estimated the proportions of neoplasms that are in principle detectable by colonoscopy but might be missed in case of incomplete bowel preparation.

METHODS

For 8,193 participants of screening colonoscopy in South-Western Germany, recruited between 2005 and 2016, the prevalence and numbers of different findings were extracted from colonoscopy reports and compared according to the reported bowel preparation quality.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation quality was reported as good, poor, or was unspecified in 30.3%, 11.1%, and 58.6% of colonoscopy records. Reported prevalences of nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs) were similar among participants with poor and unspecified bowel preparation quality but substantially lower than among participants with good bowel preparation (adjusted prevalence rate ratio [RR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.96). The differences were observed for proximal but not for distal NAAs (RRs 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71-0.95 and 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10).

DISCUSSION

Our study suggests that a significant proportion of NAAs located in the proximal colon might be missed during colonoscopy if bowel cleansing is not adequate. Major efforts should be made to further facilitate and enhance high-quality bowel preparation in routine screening practice.

Sensitivity of Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Detection Differs According to Stage and Location

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. FITs detect most CRCs. Although detection of CRC at early stages is most relevant for reducing CRC mortality, there is limited evidence for the stage-specific sensitivity of the FIT in CRC detection. We estimated stage- and location-specific sensitivities of a quantitative FIT in a large cohort of patients with CRC.

METHODS

Fecal samples were collected before treatment from 435 patients with newly diagnosed CRC. Sensitivities of a quantitative FIT (FOB Gold, Sentinel Diagnostics; Milano, Italy) for tumors of different T stages and overall TNM stages (according to Union for International Cancer Control) were calculated at the cutoff recommended by the manufacturer (17 μg/g feces) and at alternative cutoffs, ranging from 10 to 40 μg/g feces, overall and stratified by tumor location.

RESULTS

At the cutoff recommended by the manufacturer, the FIT detected T1 tumors with 52% sensitivity (95% CI, 37%-67%), T2 tumors with 79% sensitivity (95% CI, 68%-88%), T3 tumors with 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%-95%), and T4 tumors with 84% sensitivity (95% CI, 72%-92%) (P_trend < .0001). The FIT detected stage I cancers with 68% sensitivity (95% CI, 57%-78%), stage II cancers with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-96%), stage III cancers with 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 73%-89%), and stage IV cancers with 89% sensitivity (95% CI, 80%-95%) (P_trend 0.01). The FIT detected T1 colorectal tumors with sensitivity values that were 22%-52% lower than for tumors of other T stages and stage I CRC with sensitivity values that were 11%-33% lower than for later-stage CRCs, at any of the evaluated cutoff values. The FIT detected T1 and stage I CRCs in the distal colon with sensitivity values of 32% and 52%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the FIT identifies patients with CRC with overall high sensitivity, it can miss approximately one-third of stage I CRCs. Studies are needed to increase noninvasive detection of early-stage CRC.

Risk-Adapted Cutoffs in Colorectal Cancer Screening by Fecal Immunochemical Tests

INTRODUCTION

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin are increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The use of uniform positivity thresholds (cutoffs) within screening populations is expected to imply lower positive predictive values (PPVs) and higher numbers of colonoscopies needed (numbers needed to scope [NNSs]) to detect advanced neoplasms among screening participants at lower risk compared with those at higher risk. We aimed to assess such variation and its potential implications in a large screening cohort.

METHODS

A quantitative FIT (FOB Gold; Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy) was conducted in fecal samples collected by 4,332 participants of screening colonoscopy before bowel preparation. Participants were classified into 3 risk groups (low, medium, and high) by tertiles of a previously derived risk-factor-based risk score. We determined the variation of PPVs and NNSs for detecting advanced neoplasms (i.e., CRC or advanced adenoma) when using the same FIT cutoffs and variation of FIT cutoffs that would yield uniform PPVs across risk groups.

RESULTS

When a fixed FIT cutoff of 10 μg/g was used, the PPV increased from 23.3% to 41.8% from the low- to the high-risk group, with NNS decreasing from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < 0.001). Similar variations of PPVs and NNSs across risk groups were observed at higher FIT cutoffs. When risk group-specific cutoffs were defined to achieve fixed PPVs of 25%, 30%, and 35% across all risk groups, cutoffs varied from 5.3 to 11.4, 6.5 to 18.7, and 7.5 to 31.0 μg hemoglobin/g feces, respectively, between high- and low-risk groups (P < 0.05 for all differences).

DISCUSSION

Using risk-adapted cutoffs may help to achieve target levels of PPV and NNS and might be an option to consider for personalized FIT-based CRC screening.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Accuracy of a fecal immunochemical test according to outside temperature and travel time

Background

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are widely used and recommended for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Fecal hemoglobin (Hb) may degrade with long transport durations and high ambient temperatures, potentially reducing sensitivity to detect CRC and its precursors. This study aimed at investigating the impact of temperatures and sample travel times on diagnostic performance of a quantitative FIT for detection of advanced neoplasms (AN, CRC, or advanced adenoma).

Methods

Participants of screening colonoscopy in south-western Germany conducted a quantitative FIT prior to bowel preparation between February 2012 and June 2016. From available locations and dates of stool sampling and transport, maximum ambient temperatures were linked to 2,870 participants aged 50–79 years and sample return durations were recorded. The impact of ambient temperatures and return duration on FIT sensitivity and specificity was assessed for five different cutoffs between 10 and 25 µg Hb/g feces.

Results

At a positivity threshold of 20 µg Hb/g feces, overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting any AN were 40% (95% CI, 35–47%) and 95% (95% CI, 94–96%), respectively. Inverse associations between maximum ambient temperature (median 18.1°C, inter-quartile range [IQR] =11.4–24.9°C) and sensitivity of FIT were observed which were stronger at higher cutoffs. Sample return durations (median 6 days, IQR =4–8 days) were not associated with variable sensitivities or specificities.

Conclusion

Hb degredation during fecal sample transportation in summer months may be of some concern for diagnostic performance of the FIT evaluated under routine conditions in a middle-European climate.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: implications of different colonoscopy referral strategies

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Its potential to detect proximal neoplasms depends on colonoscopy referral. We estimated diagnostic performance of sigmoidoscopy using 12 different referral criteria in detecting colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Colonoscopy results from 14,947 participants of screening colonoscopy in Germany were used to derive sensitivity of sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas (AAs), and any advanced neoplasms in the proximal colon. It was assumed that FS detects the same neoplasms as colonoscopy within its reach and that distal neoplasms would be followed by colonoscopy. In addition, numbers of colonoscopies needed (NCN) to detect one proximal advanced neoplasm were calculated. The most advanced findings during colonoscopy were colorectal cancer in 213 subjects (1.4%), AA in 1539 subjects (10.2%) and non-advanced adenomas in 2988 subjects (19.8%). Without colonoscopy referral, overall sensitivities for any colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma and any advanced neoplasm (proximal or distal) would be 79, 65 and 66%, respectively. These sensitivities could be increased to up to 86, 83 and 84% by the referral strategies investigated. Compared to referral due to advanced adenomas, referral due to non-advanced adenomas would substantially increase the NCN at a modest gain in sensitivity. Sensitivities were higher and NCNs were lower in men than in women for every strategy. In conclusion, colonoscopy referral can substantially increase sensitivity of sigmoidoscopy-based screening, but the gain by referral due to non-advanced adenomas substantially increases NCN compared to referral due to advanced neoplasms only. Major sex differences may call for sex-specific referral strategies.