Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis

Potential for enhancing efficacy of screening colonoscopy by lowering starting ages and extending screening intervals: A modelling study for Germany

Studies aimed to evaluate the expected impact of alternative screening strategies are essential for optimizing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening offers, but such studies are lacking in Germany, where two screening colonoscopies (CS) 10 years apart are offered for men from age 50 and women from age 55. Our aim was to explore whether and to what extent the efficacy of utilizing two CS could be enhanced by alternative starting ages and screening intervals. We modeled the expected numbers of CRC cases, CRC deaths, years of potential life lost (YPLL), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to CRC in hypothetical cohorts of 100,000 men and women aged 45-85 using COSIMO, a validated Markov-based multi-state simulation model. Modeled strategies included combinations of starting ages (45/50/55/60) and CS (10/15/20 years). For men, CRC deaths could be slightly reduced by extending the interval to 15 years, with a second CS at 65. YPLL and DALYs would be reduced by decreasing starting age to 45 when combined with a 15-year screening interval. For women, use of two CS at ages 50 and 65 would reduce all CRC burden parameters compared to the current earliest-use offer at 55 and 65 years. Our results suggest that lowering the starting age of screening colonoscopy to 45 for men and 50 for women, combined with extending the CS screening interval to 15 years would have the potential to enable significant reductions in years of potential life lost, and disability-adjusted life years compared to current screening offers in Germany.

Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Negative Colonoscopy Screening Results

Importance

The current recommendation for a 10-year rescreening interval after a negative colonoscopy screening (NCS) result has been questioned, with some studies showing a persistently lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) after NCS results.

Objective

To examine long-term CRC incidence and mortality after NCS results (ie, no presence of CRC or polyps) and according to a risk score based on major demographic and lifestyle risk factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, 3 prospective US population-based cohorts from the Nurses' Health Study, Nurses' Health Study II, and Health Professionals Follow-up Study were followed up from 1988 and 1991 to 2020. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from the January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, cycle were used to compare the risk profile distribution with that of the general US population. Data analysis was performed from October 2023 to August 2024.

Exposures

Time-varying status of NCS results and risk score.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for incidence and mortality of CRC.

Results

A total of 195 453 participants (median [IQR] age, 44 [37-56] years at baseline; 81% female) were followed up for a median (IQR) of 12 (6-20) years. Among 81 151 individuals with NCS results and 114 302 without endoscopy, 394 and 2229 CRC cases and 167 and 637 CRC deaths, respectively, were documented. Negative colonoscopy screening results were consistently associated with lower CRC incidence (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.58) and mortality (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70) for 20 years. Among individuals with NCS results, those with an intermediate risk (scores, 6-7) and low risk (scores, 0-5) did not reach the 10-year cumulative incidence of CRC (0.78%) of the high-risk individuals (scores, 8-12) until 16 and 25 years after initial screening, respectively.

Conclusion and Relevance

These findings provide evidence for shared decision-making between patients and physicians to consider extending the rescreening intervals after an NCS result beyond the currently recommended 10 years, particularly for individuals with a low-risk profile. These results showed, as a proof of concepts, the importance of considering known CRC risk factors when making decisions for colonoscopy rescreening.

Longer Interval Between First Colonoscopy With Negative Findings for Colorectal Cancer and Repeat Colonoscopy

Importance

For individuals without a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC), colonoscopy screening every 10 years is recommended to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. However, debate exists about whether and for how long this 10-year interval could be safely expanded.

Objective

To assess how many years after a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC a second colonoscopy can be performed.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study leveraged Swedish nationwide register-based data to examine CRC diagnoses and CRC-specific mortality among individuals without a family history of CRC. The exposed group included individuals who had a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC at age 45 to 69 years between 1990 and 2016. The control group included individuals matched by sex, birth year, and baseline age (ie, the age of their matched exposed individual when the exposed individual's first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC was performed). Individuals in the control group either did not have a colonoscopy during the follow-up or underwent colonoscopy that resulted in a CRC diagnosis. Up to 18 controls were matched with each exposed individual. Individuals were followed up from 1990 to 2018, and data were analyzed from November 2022 to November 2023.

Exposure

A first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, defined as a first colonoscopy without a diagnosis of colorectal polyp, adenoma, carcinoma in situ, or CRC before or within 6 months after screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were CRC diagnosis and CRC-specific death. The 10-year standardized incidence ratio and standardized mortality ratio were calculated to compare risks of CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals.

Results

The sample included 110 074 individuals (65 147 females [59.2%]) in the exposed group and 1 981 332 (1 172 646 females [59.2%]) in the control group. The median (IQR) age for individuals in both groups was 59 (52-64) years. During up to 29 years of follow-up of individuals with a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC-specific deaths occurred. After a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, the risks of CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed group were significantly lower than those in their matched controls for 15 years. At 15 years after a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, the 10-year standardized incidence ratio was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.94) and the 10-year standardized mortality ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29-0.94). In other words, the 10-year cumulative risk of CRC in year 15 in the exposed group was 72% that of the 10-year cumulative risk of CRC in the control group. Extending the colonoscopy screening interval from 10 to 15 years in individuals with a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC could miss the early detection of only 2 CRC cases and the prevention of 1 CRC-specific death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that for the population without a family history of CRC, the 10-year interval between colonoscopy screenings for individuals with a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC could potentially be extended to 15 years. A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.

Reduction in colorectal cancer incidence by screening endoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rates decreased by up to 50% in older age groups in the USA in the era of the widespread uptake of screening colonoscopy, despite adverse trends in CRC risk factors and increasing CRC incidence at younger ages. However, reported first results from a randomized trial, the NordICC study, suggested rather modest effects of screening colonoscopy. As outlined in this Perspective, the apparent discrepancy between real-world and trial evidence could be explained by strong attenuation of effect estimates from screening endoscopy trials by several factors, including limited screening adherence, widespread uptake of colonoscopy outside the screening offers and the inclusion of prevalent, non-preventable CRC cases in reported numbers of incident cases. Alternative interpretations of screening endoscopy trial results accounting for prevalence bias are in line with trends in CRC incidence reduction in countries offering CRC screening, and should encourage more widespread implementation and uptake of effective CRC screening.

Prevalence of Colorectal Neoplasia 10 or More Years After a Negative Screening Colonoscopy in 120 000 Repeated Screening Colonoscopies

Importance

Screening colonoscopy to prevent and early detect colorectal cancer is recommended to be repeated in 10-year intervals, which goes along with high demands of capacities and costs. Evidence of findings at screening colonoscopies conducted 10 or more years after a negative colonoscopy result is sparse, and it remains unclear whether screening colonoscopy intervals could possibly be prolonged.

Objective

To assess the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasms (ADNs) at least 10 years after a negative screening colonoscopy in a very large cohort of repeated screening colonoscopy participants in Germany.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This registry-based cross-sectional study on screening colonoscopy findings reported to the German screening colonoscopy registry during January 2013 to December 2019 included data on screening colonoscopies that were offered to the German general population 55 years or older since 2002; virtually all screening colonoscopies among individuals covered by Statutory Health Insurance (approximately 90% of eligible adults) are reported to the national registry. A total of 120 298 repeat screening colonoscopy participants 65 years or older were identified who had a previous negative screening colonoscopy at least 10 years prior. The findings were compared with all screening colonoscopies conducted at 65 years or older during the same period (1.25 million). The data were analyzed from March to July 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of colorectal cancers and ADNs (advanced adenomas and cancers).

Results

Of 120 298 participants, 72 349 (60.1%) were women. Prevalence of ADN was 3.6% and 5.2% among women and men 10 years after a negative screening colonoscopy and gradually increased to 4.9% and 6.6%, respectively, among those who had a negative colonoscopy 14 years or longer prior compared with 7.1% and 11.6% among all screening colonoscopies. Sex-specific and age-specific prevalence of ADNs at repeated colonoscopies conducted 10 or more years after a negative colonoscopy were consistently at least 40% lower among women than among men, lower at younger vs older ages, and much lower than among all screening colonoscopies (standardized prevalence ratios for cancers: 0.22-0.38 among women, 0.15-0.24 among men; standardized prevalence ratios for ADNs: 0.49-0.62 among women, 0.50-0.56 among men).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that ADN prevalence at screening colonoscopies conducted 10 or more years after a negative screening colonoscopy is low. Extension of the currently recommended 10-year screening intervals may be warranted, especially for female and younger participants without gastrointestinal symptoms.

Diagnostic yield of repeat screening colonoscopy ten years after an adenoma-negative index screening endoscopy

In Germany, colonoscopy was introduced as a screening instrument about 20 years ago. Ten years after an adenoma-negative index endoscopy, a second screening colonoscopy can be performed in younger persons, but this approach is based on limited evidence. We therefore prospectively analyzed the diagnostic yield of second screening colonoscopies in clinical routine.Ten years following adenoma-negative screening endoscopy a second screening colonoscopy was performed in 401 persons (210 women and 191 men); mean age was 70 years. A total of 244 benign neoplastic lesions were removed in 135 persons (34%). Eight persons had three or more small tubular adenomas removed; 19 persons had at least one tubular adenoma measuring ≥ 10 mm; 14 persons had adenomas with villous characteristics; 19 persons had serrated adenomas; one person had an adenoma with high grade dysplasia. Thus 61 persons (33 men and 28 women) were classified as bearing a significant risk for the development of colorectal cancer (15%). An additional patient had a low-risk malignant polyp removed endoscopically.We conclude that a significant number of small and advanced adenomas can be identified in a second screening colonoscopy ten years after an adenoma-negative index screening endoscopy, but malignant lesions are rare. Whether or not removal of the benign lesions in a second screening colonoscopy will reduce incidence and mortality of colorectal carcinoma remains to be seen in this elderly group.

Insights into the quantification and reporting of model-related uncertainty across different disciplines

Quantifying uncertainty associated with our models is the only way we can express how much we know about any phenomenon. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to overstated conclusions with real-world impacts in diverse spheres, including conservation, epidemiology, climate science, and policy. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, we still know little about how different fields quantify and report uncertainty. We introduce the "sources of uncertainty" framework, using it to conduct a systematic audit of model-related uncertainty quantification from seven scientific fields, spanning the biological, physical, and political sciences. Our interdisciplinary audit shows no field fully considers all possible sources of uncertainty, but each has its own best practices alongside shared outstanding challenges. We make ten easy-to-implement recommendations to improve the consistency, completeness, and clarity of reporting on model-related uncertainty. These recommendations serve as a guide to best practices across scientific fields and expand our toolbox for high-quality research.

Incidence of colorectal cancer at different screening intervals after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy: a meta-analysis of 811,181 participants

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence on the incidence of colorectal cancers (CRCs) at a follow-up screening colonoscopy (after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy) in individuals with no adenoma, low-risk adenomas, and high-risk adenomas.

METHODS

We included studies reporting the incidence of CRCs at different screening intervals after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy. The main outcome was pooled cumulative incidence rate of CRCs stratified by intervals of 3, 5, 10, and >10 years.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 811,181 participants were analyzed, including 10 multicenter studies and 3 national CRC screening programs. The cumulative incidence of CRCs was 0.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30, 0.97) in the high-risk-adenoma group at 3 years, 0.37% (95% CI: 0.13, 0.61) and 0.67% (95% CI: 0.36, 0.99) in the low-risk-adenoma group at 5 and 10 years, respectively, and 0.32% (95% CI: 0.20, 0.45) and 0.50% (95% CI: 0.30, 0.69) in the no-adenoma-group at 10 and >10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis summarizes the results of colonoscopy surveillance programs with detailed data support for different screening intervals. The data on date suggest that reasonable surveillance intervals are within 3 years for the high-risk-adenoma group, 5-10 years for the low-risk-adenoma group, and ≥10 years for the no-adenoma group.

IGFBP5 is Upregulated and Associated with Poor Prognosis in Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the role of IGFBP5 in colorectal cancer (CRC) and the relationship between the expression of IGFBP5 and clinicopathological parameters in CRC patients.

Patients and Methods

Immunohistochemical analysis was used to detect the expression of IGFBP5 and its correlation with clinicopathological parameters of CRC patients. Prognosis analysis, gene set enrichment analysis, and protein interaction network analysis were performed using bioinformatics analysis. The Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) dataset was used to analyze the correlation between the expression of IGFBP5 and drug resistance.

Results

Immunohistochemical analysis revealed that the expression of IGFBP5 was significantly higher in CRC tissues than in para-cancerous tissues (P < 0.05). High expression of IGFBP5 was associated with tumor differentiation and the N stage of CRC (P < 0.05). Moreover, high expression of IGFBP5 predicted worse overall survival and disease-free survival in CRC patients (P < 0.05). The expression of IGFBP5 was associated with cell–matrix adhesion, extracellular matrix binding, and collagen binding (P < 0.05). Furthermore, IGFBP5 was involved in the Hedgehog signaling pathway and PI3K-Akt signaling pathway (P < 0.05). IGF1, IGF2, SPP1, LTBP1, and FAM20C were most closely related to IGFBP5.

Conclusion

The expression of IGFBP5 is upregulated and associated with tumor differentiation, lymph node metastasis, drug resistance, and prognosis in CRC patients.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: Can we improve the diagnostic yield?

Although adenomas and serrated polyps are the preneoplastic lesions of colorectal cancer, only few of them will eventually progress to cancer. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present and future of post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance. Post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines have recently been updated and all share the aim towards more selective and less frequent surveillance. We have examined these current guidelines and compared the recommendations of each of them. To improve the diagnostic yield of post-polypectomy surveillance it is important to find predictors of metachronous polyps that better identify high-risk individuals of developing advanced neoplasia. For this reason, we have also conducted a literature review of the molecular biomarkers of metachronous advanced colorectal polyps. Finally, we have discussed future directions of post-polypectomy surveillance and identified possible strategies to improve the use of endoscopic resources with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Long-term cumulative incidence of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after colonoscopy and a novel risk factor: a cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Long-term cumulative incidence of and risk factors for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia, including both advanced colorectal adenoma (≥10 mm, or with villous or high-grade dysplasia) and colorectal cancer, are critical for surveillance strategies. The aim of this study was to determine the cumulative incidence of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia and its risk factors.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 6720 consecutive individuals who underwent general health check-ups and colonoscopy. Colorectal adenomas at initial colonoscopy were categorized as low-risk (1-2 small [<10 mm] tubular adenomas) or high-risk adenoma (≥3 tubular adenomas of any size; at least one adenoma ≥10 mm; or villous adenoma or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia). Kaplan-Meier estimates and hazard ratio by Cox-proportional hazard regression were calculated.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia at 5 and 10 years was 5.7% [4.6-7.1], and 11% [8.9-14] in the low-risk adenoma group, and 10% [8.6-13], and 17% [14-21] in high-risk adenoma group, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] of low-risk adenoma (vs. no colorectal adenoma), high-risk adenoma (vs. no colorectal adenoma), current smoking and positive fecal immunochemical test were 1.34 [1.04-1.74], 1.94 [1.48-2.55], 1.55 [1.2-2.02] and 1.69 [1.35-2.1], respectively. Adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] of positive fecal immunochemical test was 1.88 [1.29-2.74] in those with normal colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both low-risk and high-risk adenomas confer substantial risk for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia at 10 years. Positive fecal immunochemical test was a significant risk factor for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia despite normal colonoscopy.

Follow-up outcomes in patients with negative initial colon capsule endoscopy findings

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), which became clinically applicable in 2006, is a simple and noninvasive procedure to evaluate colonic diseases; the accuracy of second-generation CCE, introduced in 2009, has dramatically improved. Currently, CCE is used as an alternative method for colorectal cancer screening, as well as for evaluating the mucosal lesions of inflammatory bowel disease, in cases where performing colonoscopy (CS) is difficult. However, the outcomes of CCE are uncertain.

AIM

To investigate the outcomes of Japanese patients with negative findings (no polyps or colorectal cancer) on initial CCE.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study was conducted at the Endoscopic Center at Aishinkai Nakae Hospital. This study included patients who underwent continuous CCE between November 2013 and August 2019, that exhibited no evidence of polyps or colorectal cancer at the initial CCE, and could be followed up using either the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), CS, or CCE. The observational period, follow-up method, presence or absence of polyps and colorectal cancer, pathological diagnosis, and number of colorectal cancer deaths were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (mean age, 60.4 ± 15.6 years; range, 28–84 years; 14 men and 17 women) were enrolled in this study. The reasons for performing the first CCE were screening in 12, a positive FIT in six, lower abdominal pain in nine, diarrhea in two, and anemia in two patients. The mean total water volume at the time of examination was 3460 ± 602 mL (2250–4800 mL), and a total CS was performed in 28 patients (90%). The degree of cleanliness was excellent in 15 patients and good in 16, and no poor cases were observed. No adverse events, such as retention or capsule aspiration, were observed in any of the patients. The mean follow-up period was 3.1 ± 1.5 years (range, 0.3–5.5 years). Follow-up included FIT in nine, CS in 20, and CCE in four patients (including duplicate patients). The FIT was positive in two patients, while CS revealed five polyp lesions (three in the ascending colon, one in the transverse colon, and one in the descending colon), with sizes ranging between 2 mm and 8 mm. Histopathological findings revealed a hyperplastic polyp in one patient, and adenoma with low grade dysplasia in four patients; colorectal cancers were not recognized. In the follow-up example by CCE, polyps and colorectal cancer could not be recognized. During the follow-up period, there were no deaths due to colorectal cancer in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

We determined the outcomes in patients with negative initial CCE findings.

Moving beyond the initial colonoscopy: a call for action

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of colorectal screening has made headway with continual efforts globally to increase screening rates for colonoscopy-naïve patients. However, little has been done to encourage repeat colonoscopies after the initial scope despite recommendations to repeat colonoscopy every 10 years, with the uptake rates of repeat colonoscopy remaining abysmal at 22%.

METHODS

Previously, a qualitative systematic review evaluated the barriers and facilitators patients faced in their decisions to undergo colonoscopy, analyzing articles from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Key findings from articles which highlighted factors influencing patients' decisions to return for repeat colonoscopies were summarized.

RESULTS

Three articles were identified in the search. Facilitators for repeat colonoscopy included patients' assurance garnered from fostered trust in the patient-provider relationship, their intrinsic motivations from fear of cancer and an innate appreciation for the significance of obtaining repeated colonoscopies. Procedural factors such as the option for procedural visualization, its comprehensiveness and the utilization of anesthesia were also crucial motivators. Barriers that patients highlighted comprised of cumbersome bowel preparation and potential complications.

DISCUSSION

Recently, minimal research has been conducted on the sentiments of healthcare providers and patients regarding repeat colonoscopy. The lack of emphasis from healthcare institutions on encouraging patients to repeat colonoscopy after 10 years prevents effective colorectal cancer screening. To proficiently alleviate the burden of colorectal cancer, patient counseling has to shift beyond explaining colonoscopy risks and complications to promoting regular follow-up scopes. This article thus calls for more studies to focus on evaluating the uptake of repeat colonoscopies.

Gastrointestinal cancers in China, the USA, and Europe

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, including colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, and esophageal cancer, are a major medical and economic burden worldwide and have the largest number of new cancer cases and cancer deaths each year. Esophageal and gastric cancers are most common in developing countries, while colorectal cancer forms the major GI malignancy in Western countries. However, a great shift in the predominant GI-cancer type is happening in countries under economically transitioning and, at the same time, esophageal and gastric cancers are reigniting in Western countries due to the higher exposure to certain risk factors. The development of all GI cancers is highly associated with lifestyle habits and all can be detected by identified precancerous diseases. Thus, they are all suitable for cancer screening. Here, we review the epidemiological status of GI cancers in China, the USA, and Europe; the major risk factors and their distribution in these regions; and the current screening strategies.

Future Prospects of Colorectal Cancer Screening: Characterizing Interval Cancers

Tumors that are not detected by screening tests are known as interval cancers and are diagnosed clinically after a negative result in the screening episode but before the next screening invitation. Clinical characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancers have been studied, but few molecular data are available that describe interval colorectal cancers. A better understanding of the clinical and biological characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancer may provide new insights into how to prevent this disease more effectively. This review aimed to summarize the current literature concerning interval colorectal cancer and its epidemiological, clinical, and molecular features.

Long-Term Incidence and Mortality of Colorectal Cancer After Endoscopic Biopsy With Normal Mucosa: A Swedish-Matched Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Individuals with a negative result are recommended to undergo rescreening within a 10-year interval, but evidence supporting this advice is limited.

METHODS

We performed a matched cohort study using prospectively collected data from 88,798 individuals in Sweden with normal mucosa at the first colorectal biopsy (aged ≥50 years) in the nationwide gastrointestinal epidemiology strengthened by histopathology reports (ESPRESSO) (1965-2016) and 424,150 matched reference individuals from the general population. Cox proportional hazards regression estimated multivariable hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CRC incidence and mortality of incident CRCs up to 44 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

In the normal biopsy and reference groups, respectively, the 20-year incidences of CRC were 3.03% and 4.53% and the 20-year mortalities of incident CRC were 0.89% and 1.54%. The multivariable hazard ratio comparing the normal biopsy and reference groups was 0.62 for CRC incidence (95% CI = 0.58-0.66, P < 0.001) and 0.56 for mortality of incident CRC (95% CI = 0.49-0.64, P < 0.001). When assessed by time interval after biopsy, lower CRC incidence and mortality were observed throughout the follow-up. The association seemed weaker for proximal colon cancer than for rectal and distal colon cancer.

DISCUSSION

A normal colorectal biopsy was associated with lower CRC incidence and mortality for at least 20 years after the examination. Our findings confirm previous data and suggest that the screening intervals after a normal colonoscopy could be longer than the commonly recommended 10 years. It may be time to open the discussion for a revision of the international guidelines.

Use of Polygenic Risk Scores to Select Screening Intervals After Negative Findings From Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could help to define starting ages for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the role of PRS in determining the length of screening interval after negative findings from colonoscopies is unclear. We aimed to evaluate CRC risk according to PRS and time since last negative colonoscopy.

METHODS

We collected data from 3827 cases and 2641 CRC-free controls in a population-based case-control study in Germany. We constructed a polygenic risk scoring system, based on 90 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, associated with risk of CRC in people of European descent. Participants were classified as having low, medium, or high genetic risk according to tertiles of PRSs among controls. Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess CRC risk according to PRS and time since last negative colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Compared to individuals without colonoscopy in the low PRS category, a 42%-85% lower risk of CRC was observed for individuals who had a negative finding from colonoscopy within 10 years. Beyond 10 years after a negative finding from colonoscopy, significantly lower risk only persisted for the low and medium PRS groups, but not for the high PRS group. Adjusted odds ratios were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29-0.68), 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34-0.77), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.23) in the low, medium, and high PRS group, respectively. Within any time interval, risks were lower for distal than for proximal CRCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on findings from a population-based case-control study, the recommended 10-year screening interval for colonoscopy may not need to be shortened among people with high PRSs, but could potentially be prolonged for people with low and medium PRSs. Studies are needed to address personalized time intervals for repeat colonoscopies in average-risk screening cohorts.