Risk stratification of individuals with low-risk colorectal adenomas using clinical characteristics: a pooled analysis

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation.

METHODS

Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation.

CONCLUSIONS

CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

A population-based analysis on the incidence of metachronous colon cancer after endoscopic resection of advanced adenomas with high-grade dysplasia: does location matter?

BACKGROUND

Advanced adenomas (AAs) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) represent a risk factor for metachronous neoplasia, with guidelines recommending short-interval surveillance. Although the worse prognosis of proximal (vs distal) colon cancers (CCs) is established, there is paucity of evidence on the impact of laterality on the risk of subsequent neoplasia for these AAs.

METHODS

Adults with HGD adenomas undergoing polypectomy were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2000-2019). Cumulative incidence of malignancy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Fine-Gray models assessed the effect of patient and disease characteristics on CC incidence.

RESULTS

Of 3199 patients, 26% had proximal AAs. A total of 65 cases of metachronous adenocarcinoma were identified after polypectomy of 35 proximal and 30 distal adenomas with HGD. The 10-year cumulative incidence of CC was 2.3%; when stratified by location, it was 4.8% for proximal vs 1.4% for distal adenomas. Proximal location was significantly associated with increased incidence of metachronous cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.05-5.38).

CONCLUSION

Proximal location of AAs with HGD was associated with >3-fold increased incidence of metachronous CC and shorter time to diagnosis. These data suggest laterality should be considered in the treatment and follow-up of these patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Liquid Biopsy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Patients Who Are Unscreened

Importance

Despite recommendations for universal screening, adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the US is approximately 60%. Liquid biopsy tests are in development for cancer early detection, but it is unclear whether they are cost-effective for colorectal cancer screening.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare no screening and 5 colorectal cancer screening strategies: colonoscopy, liquid biopsy, liquid biopsy following nonadherence to colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test. Adherence to first-line screening with colonoscopy, stool DNA, or fecal immunochemical test was assumed to be 60.6%, and adherence for liquid biopsy was assumed to be 100%. For colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test, patients who did not adhere to testing were not offered other screening. In colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid, liquid biopsy was second-line screening for those who deferred colonoscopy. Scenario analyses were performed to include the possibility of polyp detection for liquid biopsy.

Exposures

No screening, colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, stool DNA, liquid biopsy, and colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Model outcomes included life expectancy, total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was considered cost-effective if it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained.

Results

This study used a simulated cohort of patients aged 45 years with average risk of colorectal cancer. In the base case, colonoscopy was the preferred, or cost-effective, strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28 071 per life-year gained. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had the greatest gain in life-years gained but had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $377 538. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had a greater gain in life-years if liquid biopsy could detect polyps but remained too costly.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy was a cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening in the general population, and the inclusion of liquid biopsy as a first- or second-line screening strategy was not cost-effective at its current cost and screening performance. Liquid biopsy tests for colorectal cancer screening may become cost-effective if their cost is substantially lowered.

Risk of adenoma recurrence after polypectomy in patients younger than 50 years vs. 50 years old and over with diminutive or small adenomas

Background and aims

Current studies have shown that polyp recurrence occurs after colonic adenomas polypectomy (AP), but the difference in recurrence risk between patients in patients older than 50 years and younger than 50 years has not been clearly studied.

Methods

490 patients after AP were enrolled in the study. The patients were classified according to age (<50 years old or ≥50 years old), and then further categorized according to the baseline adenoma characteristics: Group 1: 1–2 non-advanced adenomas (NAAs) 1–5 mm in size; Group 2: ≥3 NAAs, 1–5 mm; Group 3: 1–2 NAAs, 6–9 mm; Group 4: ≥3 NAAs, 6–9 mm; and Group 5: advanced adenomas.

Results

During a mean follow-up interval of 2.52 years (2.51 years for ≥50 years old and 2.55 years for patients <50 years old), NAA recurrence was detected in 147 patients (30.0%). Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for NAA recurrence after AP was higher in patients ≥50 years old than that in patients <50 years old (HR, 1.774, P = 0.003). For patients <50 years old, HRs (Group 2-5 vs. G1, respectively) for NAA recurrence were 0.744 (P = 0.773), 3.885 (P = 0.007), 5.337 (P = 0.003), and 3.334 (P = 0.015). For patients ≥50 years old, HRs (Group 2-5 vs. G1, respectively) for NAA recurrence were 1.033 (P = 0.965), 1.250 (P = 0.405), 2.252 (P = 0.015), and 1.887 (P = 0.009). For G1, the risk of NAA recurrence was significantly higher in patients ≥50 years old (HR, 2.932, P = 0.011) than that in patients <50 years old; for G2–G5, the risk was similar in the two age groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

For patients <50 years old with less than 3 NAAs that are 1–5 mm in size, the recurrence rate of NAA is less than that of patients ≥50 years old with the same index colonoscopy findings. When the adenomas are ≥5 mm, or their number exceeds 3, they have similar recurrence risk as that for patients ≥50 years old.

A computer-aided diagnosis system using white-light endoscopy for the prediction of conventional adenoma with high grade dysplasia

OBJECTIVES

We developed a computer-aided diagnosis system called ECRCCAD using standard white-light endoscopy (WLE) for predicting conventional adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) to optimise the patients' management decisions during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Pretraining model was used to fine-tune the model parameters by transfer learning. 2,397 images of HGD and 2,487 low-grade dysplasia (LGD) images were randomly assigned (8:1:1) to the training, optimising, and internal validation dataset. The prospective validation dataset is the frames accessed from colonoscope videoes. One independent rural hospital provided an external validation dataset. Histopathological diagnosis was used as the standard criterion. The capability of the ECRCCAD to distinguish HGD was assessed and compared with two expert endoscopists.

RESULTS

The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of HGD in the internal validation set were 90.5%, 93.2%, 87.9%, respectively. While 88.2%, 85.4%, 89.8%, respectively, for the external validation set. For the prospective validation set, ECRCCAD achieved an AUC of 93.5% in diagnosing HGD. The performance of ECRCCAD in diagnosing HGD was better than that of the expert endoscopist in the external validation set (88.2% vs. 71.5%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

ECRCCAD had good diagnostic capability for HGD and enabled a more convenient and accurate diagnosis using WLE.

Risk of developing metachronous colorectal neoplasia after the resection of proximal versus distal adenomas

BACKGROUND

Current post-polypectomy guidelines do not consider adenoma location. We compared the risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasia (CRN) according to adenoma location.

METHODS

We collected data from 9710 patients who underwent follow-up colonoscopy after adenoma removal. Patients were classified according to baseline adenoma location: distal only (n=4665), proximal only (n=3827), and both sides (n=1218).

RESULTS

The risk of metachronous CRN in patients with proximal only adenomas was higher than that in those with distal only adenomas (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.04-1.21), while the risk of metachronous advanced CRN (ACRN) was not different between the two groups. Among patients aged <50 years, the risk of metachronous CRN in those with proximal only non-advanced adenomas (NAAs) was higher than that in those with only distal NAAs, while among patients aged ≥ 50 years, the risk in those with proximal only advanced adenomas (AAs) was higher than that in those with distal only AAs. However, the risk of metachronous ACRN did not differ based on adenoma location in patients aged < 50 and ≥ 50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal adenoma was associated with an increased risk of metachronous CRN, but not with an increased risk of metachronous ACRN, supporting the current guidelines recommending the same surveillance interval for distal and proximal adenoma without discrimination by adenoma location.

Development of a Large Colonoscopy-Based Longitudinal Cohort for Integrated Research of Colorectal Cancer: Partners Colonoscopy Cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional adenomas (CAs) and serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to colorectal cancer (CRC). Understanding metachronous cancer risk is poor due to lack of accurate large-volume datasets. We outline the use of natural language processing (NLP) in forming the Partners Colonoscopy Cohort, an integrated longitudinal cohort of patients undergoing colonoscopies.

METHODS

We identified endoscopy quality data from endoscopy reports for colonoscopies performed from 2007 to 2018 in a large integrated healthcare system, Mass General Brigham). Through modification of an established NLP pipeline, we extracted histopathological data (polyp location, histology and dysplasia) from corresponding pathology reports. Pathology and endoscopy data were merged by polyp location using a four-stage algorithm. NLP and merging procedures were validated by manual review of 500 pathology reports.

RESULTS

305,656 colonoscopies in 213,924 patients were identified. After merging, 76,137 patients had matched polyp data for 334,750 polyps. CAs and SPs were present in 86,707 (28.5%) and 55,373 (18.2%) colonoscopies. Among patients with polyps at index screening colonoscopy, 14,931 (33.4%) had follow-up colonoscopy (median 46.4, interquartile range 33.8-62.4 months); 91 (0.2%) and 1127 (2.5%) patients developed metachronous CRC and high-risk polyps (polyps ≥ 10 mm or CAs having high-grade dysplasia/villous/tublovillous histology or SPs with dysplasia). Genetic data were available for 23,787 (31.7%) patients with polyps from the Partners Biobank. The validation study showed a positive predictive value of 100% for polyp histology and locations.

CONCLUSION

We created the Partners Colonoscopy Cohort providing essential infrastructure for future studies to better understand the natural history of CRC and improve screening and post-polypectomy strategies.

Low potency of fecal immunological surveillance testing soon after negative colonoscopy or resection of low-risk adenoma in average-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Postcolonoscopy surveillance colonoscopy based on positive fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is often performed, although its long-term efficacy has not been established. The aim of this study was to clarify the low potency of FOBT surveillance at short intervals after colonoscopy.

METHODS

Colonoscopy was performed in 1308 average-risk patients, based on positive results of immunological FOBT [fecal immunological test (FIT)]. Patients were stratified according to the length of time since their last colonoscopy and their colonoscopy results [no adenoma or 1-2 small (<10 mm) adenomas]. Tumor detection rates were determined.

RESULTS

The baseline patients characteristics did not differ between the groups. The advanced lesion detection rate (ALDR) among the patients who had never undergone a colonoscopy was 21.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.1-25.0%]. Among the patients who had no adenoma detected in the previous colonoscopy within the past 5 years, the past 5-10 years and over 10 years, the ALDRs were 2.5% (95% CI, 1.0-5.5%), 4.1% (95% CI, 1.5-9.4%) and 9.3% (95% CI, 3.1-22.2%), respectively. Among the patients who had 1-2 small adenomas, the ALDRs were 7.4% (95% CI, 3.4-14.8%), 12.1% (95% CI, 4.2-27.9%) and 27.8% (95% CI, 12.2-51.2%), respectively. Invasive cancer was not observed in any patients within 5 years since the prior colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

In average-risk patients whose prior colonoscopy detected no adenomas or low-risk adenomas, postcolonoscopy surveillance by FIT has a low positive predictive value within a 5-year interval.

Post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy: Comparison of the updated guidelines

Background

Recently, three updated guidelines for post‐polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance (PPCS) have been published. These guidelines are based on a comprehensive summary of the literature, while some recommendations are similar, different surveillance intervals are recommended after detection of specific types of polyps.

Aim

In this review, we aimed to compare and contrast these recommendations.

Methods

The updated guidelines for PPCS were reviewed and the recommendations were compared.

Results

For patients with 1–4 adenomas <10 mm with low‐grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or 1–4 serrated polyps <10 mm without dysplasia, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE) (BSG/ACPGBI/PHE) guidelines do not recommend colonoscopic surveillance and instead recommend that the participate in routine CRC screening program (typically based on the fecal immunochemical test), while the USMSTF recommends surveillance colonoscopies 7–10 years after diagnosis of 1–2 tubular adenomas <10 mm and 3–5 years for 3–4 tubular adenomas of the same size. The USMSTF define adenomas with tubulovillous or villous histology as high‐risk adenomas; thus, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after 3 years. However, the ESGE and BSG do not consider such histology as a criterion for repeating colonoscopy at this short interval. For patients with 1–2 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) <10 mm and those with 3–4 SSPs <10 mm, the USMSTF recommends surveillance colonosocopy after 5–10 and 3–5 years, respectively.

Optimization of the surveillance strategy in patients with colorectal adenomas: A combination of clinical parameters and index colonoscopy findings

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In addition to index colonoscopy findings, demographic parameters including age are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia. Here, we aimed to develop a risk scoring model for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) during surveillance using a combination of clinical factors and index colonoscopy findings.

METHODS

Patients who underwent the removal of one or more adenomas and surveillance colonoscopy were included. A risk scoring model for ACRN was developed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Surveillance interval was determined as a time point exceeding 4% of the cumulative ACRN incidence in each risk group.

RESULTS

Of 9591 participants, 4725 and 4866 were randomly allocated to the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Age, abdominal obesity, advanced adenoma, and ≥ 3 adenomas at index colonoscopy were identified as risk factors for metachronous ACRN. Based on the regression coefficients, point scores were assigned as follows: age, 1 point (per 1 year); abdominal obesity, 10 points; advanced adenoma, 10 points; and ≥ 3 adenomas, 15 points. Patients were classified into high-risk (≥ 80 points), moderate-risk (50-79 points), and low-risk (30-49 points) groups. In the validation cohort, the high-risk and moderate-risk groups showed a higher risk of ACRN than the low-risk group (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 7.11 [4.10-12.32] and 1.58 [1.09-2.30], respectively). Two-, 4-, and 5-year surveillance intervals were recommended for the high-risk, moderate-risk, and low-risk groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposed model may facilitate effective risk stratification of ACRN during surveillance and the determination of appropriate surveillance intervals.

Comparison of Risk of Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients with Sporadic Adenomas Aged < 50 Versus ≥ 50 years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

No specific recommendations are available for the surveillance of young patients aged <50 years undergoing polypectomy. We aimed to compare the risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) between patients aged ≥50 years and those aged <50 years who underwent polypectomy. Studies published between January 1980 and June 2020 that examined the risk of metachronous ACRN were searched. We performed a meta-analysis for the metachronous ACRN risk in patients with sporadic colorectal adenomas according to the age groups (≥50 vs. <50 years). Eight individual studies were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of metachronous ACRN was higher in patients aged ≥50 years than in those aged <50 years without significant heterogeneity (odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.62 (1.34–1.96), I² = 14%). The impact of the age group on the risk of metachronous ACRN was identified in both the low-risk (LRA) and high-risk (HRA) adenoma groups (≥50 vs. <50 years: LRA, OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.30–2.70); HRA, OR 1.50 [95% CI 1.13–2.00]). In conclusion, patients aged <50 years had a lower risk of metachronous ACRN than older patients. Young patients with sporadic adenomas do not require more intensive surveillance; rather, the surveillance interval may be extended in these patients.

Risk of metachronous neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy among young and older patients after polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few reports address the appropriate colonoscopy surveillance interval for individuals <50-years-old. We compared the risk of metachronous neoplasia among young (<50 years), adult (50-74 years) and older (≥75 y) age groups.

METHODS

This was a single center retrospective cohort study. Eligible subjects underwent their first colonoscopy with polypectomy between 2005 and 2014 and had at least one surveillance colonoscopy 3-5 years later. Patients (N = 495) were stratified at baseline into low-risk adenoma (LRA) and advanced adenoma groups. Study outcomes were overall and high-risk neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In the baseline LRA-group (N = 201), the 5-year risk of metachronous high-risk neoplasia was 12.5%, 15.2% and 22.5% (P = 0.426) in the young, adult and older age groups, respectively. In the baseline advanced adenoma group (N = 294), the 3-year risk of metachronous high-risk neoplasia was 13.3%, 14.8% and 25.3% (P = 0.041), respectively. In multivariate analysis, the only risk factor for metachronous high-risk neoplasia was older age (OR 1.876, CI 1.087-3.238; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the comparable risk of metachronous high-risk neoplasia in young and adult patients, surveillance recommendations after polypectomy should not differ. Since this risk is higher among older people, more frequent surveillance schedule can be considered for this age group but should be individualized.

Cap-Assisted Chromoendoscopy Using a Mounted Cap Versus Standard Colonoscopy for Adenoma Detection

OBJECTIVES

Some neoplastic lesions remain undetected on colonoscopy. To date, no studies have investigated whether combining cap-assisted colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR). This study aimed to compare cap-assisted chromoendoscopy (CAP/CHROMO) with standard colonoscopy (SC) with respect to their efficacy in detecting adenomas.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial included asymptomatic subjects aged 45-75 years who underwent colonoscopy for the first time at 14 university hospitals. Subjects were randomized to either the CAP/CHROMO group (with 0.09% indigo carmine spraying using a cap-mounted catheter at the tip of the colonoscope) or the SC group. All polyps were resected, but only histologically confirmed neoplastic lesions were considered for analysis. The primary outcome was ADR, defined as the proportion of subjects with at least 1 adenoma.

RESULTS

A total of 1,905 subjects were randomized to the CAP/CHROMO (n = 948) or SC (n = 957) group at 14 centers. Subjects' demographic characteristics were similar between both groups. The CAP/CHROMO group had significantly higher ADR than the SC group (54.4% vs 44.9%, P < 0.001). Significantly, more subjects with at least 1 proximal colon adenoma were identified by CAP/CHROMO (38.6%) than by SC (31.2%) (P = 0.001). The proximal serrated polyp detection rate by CAP/CHROMO was significantly higher in the female subgroup vs SC. However, advanced ADR was not different between the CAP/CHROMO and SC groups (9.3% vs 7.6%, P = 0.180).

DISCUSSION

CAP/CHROMO markedly improved the ADR and enhanced the detection of proximal adenoma. CAP/CHROMO is feasible for routine application and will allow for a more effective surveillance program.

The predictive value of small versus diminutive adenomas for subsequent advanced neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with previous colorectal adenomas are at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines for postpolypectomy surveillance intervals treat all tubular adenomas 1 to 9 mm in size with low-grade dysplasia as carrying the same level of risk. We evaluated whether 6 to 9 mm adenomas detected at colonoscopy are associated with greater risk of advanced neoplasia at follow-up compared with baseline 1 to 5 mm adenomas.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated a colonoscopy database at a single U.S. academic center. Patients with baseline examinations demonstrating tubular adenomas 1 to 9 mm in size with low-grade dysplasia and no advanced adenomas were included. Follow-up colonoscopies were performed at least 200 days later and were assessed for incident advanced neoplasia (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, adenoma ≥10 mm in size, or villous elements).

RESULTS

There were 2477 qualifying baseline colonoscopies. The absolute risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia increased from 3.6% in patients with 1 to 5 mm adenomas to 6.9% in patients with at least 1 adenoma of 6 to 9 mm (P = .001). Patients with 5 or more adenomas 1 of which was at least 6 to 9 mm had the highest risk of advanced neoplasia at follow-up (10.4%, P = .006). When only screening colonoscopies were considered, all baseline groups (1-2 adenomas, 3-4 adenomas, ≥5 adenomas) with adenomas 6 to 9 mm in size had an increased risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia (odds ratio [OR], 4.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-11.04; OR, 4.91; 95% CI, 1.44-16.75; OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.30-17.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with baseline small (6-9 mm) adenomas have an increased risk of advanced lesions on follow-up compared with patients with only diminutive (1-5 mm) adenomas. Postpolypectomy guidelines should consider risk stratification based on small versus diminutive adenomas.

High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Surveillance of patients with colorectal adenomas has limited long-term evidence to support current practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the lifetime benefits and costs of high- versus low-intensity surveillance.

DESIGN

Microsimulation model.

DATA SOURCES

U.S. cancer registry, cost data, and published literature.

TARGET POPULATION

U.S. patients aged 50, 60, or 70 years with low-risk adenomas (LRAs) (1 to 2 small adenomas) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs) (3 to 10 small adenomas or ≥1 large adenoma) removed after screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTION

No further screening or surveillance, routine screening after 10 years, low-intensity surveillance (10 years after LRA removal and 5 years after HRA removal), and high-intensity surveillance (5 years after LRA removal and 3 years after HRA removal).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incremental cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Without surveillance or screening, lifetime CRC incidence for patients aged 50 years was 10.9% after LRA removal and 17.2% after HRA removal at screening colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopic screening, low-intensity surveillance, or high-intensity surveillance decreased incidence by 39%, 46% to 48%, and 55% to 56%, respectively. Incidence of CRC and surveillance benefits were higher for adenomas detected at FIT screening and lower for older patients. High-intensity surveillance cost less than $30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with low-intensity surveillance.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

High-intensity surveillance cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained in most alternative scenarios for adenoma recurrence, CRC incidence, longevity, quality of life, screening ages, surveillance ages, test performance, disutilities, and cost.

LIMITATION

Few surveillance outcome data exist.

CONCLUSION

The model suggests that high-intensity surveillance as recommended in the United States provides modest but clinically relevant benefits over low-intensity surveillance at acceptable cost.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Diminutive Polyps With Advanced Histologic Features Do Not Increase Risk for Metachronous Advanced Colon Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

With advances in endoscopic imaging, it is possible to differentiate adenomatous from hyperplastic diminutive (1-5 mm) polyps during endoscopy. With the optical Resect-and-Discard strategy, these polyps are then removed and discarded without histopathology assessment. However, failure to recognize adenomas (vs hyperplastic polyps), or discarding a polyp with advanced histologic features, could result in a patient being considered at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, resulting in an inappropriately long surveillance interval. We collected data from international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are high risk because of diminutive polyps advanced histologic features and their risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

METHODS

We collected data from 12 cohorts (in the United States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123). Patients at high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia were defined as patients with polyps that had advanced histologic features (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, ≥25% villous features), 3 or more diminutive or small (6-9 mm) nonadvanced adenomas, or an adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm. Using an inverse variance random effects model, we calculated the proportion of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features; the proportion of patients classified as high risk because their diminutive polyps had advanced histologic features; and the risk of these patients for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

RESULTS

In 51,510 diminutive polyps, advanced histologic features were observed in 7.1% of polyps from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference in prevalence did not produce a significant difference in the proportions of patients assigned to high-risk status (0.8% of patients in the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25). The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features who were found to have metachronous advanced neoplasia (17.6%) did not differ significantly from the proportion of low-risk patients with metachronous advanced neoplasia (14.6%) (relative risk for high-risk categorization, 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.61).

CONCLUSION

In a pooled analysis of data from 12 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms, we found that diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

Precision Medicine Versus Population Medicine in Colon Cancer: From Prospects of Prevention, Adjuvant Chemotherapy, and Surveillance

With the advances of technologic revolution that provides new insights into human biology, genetics and cancer, as well as advantages of big data which amasses large amounts of information for us to approach cancer treatment and prevention, we are facing challenges of organically combining data from studies based on general population and information from individual testing and setting out precisional recommendations in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. We are obligated to accelerate the adaptation of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. In this review, we introduce our opinions on bringing knowledge of precision and population medicine together to guide our clinical practice from the prospects of colorectal cancer prevention, stage III colon cancer adjuvant therapy, and postsurgery surveillance.

Risk of developing metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after colonoscopic polypectomy in patients aged 30 to 39 and 40 to 49 years

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines define postpolypectomy surveillance intervals in patients aged ≥50 years. The risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasia (CRN) and the optimal postpolypectomy surveillance interval in patients aged <50 years remain unclear. We compared the risk of metachronous CRN in patients aged 30 to 39, 40 to 49, and ≥50 years.

METHODS

We studied patients who underwent ≥1 adenoma removal between 2010 and 2014 and follow-up colonoscopic surveillance until 2017.

RESULTS

Among 10,014 patients studied, 3242, 4606, and 2166 were 30 to 39, 40 to 49, and ≥50 years old, respectively. After high-risk adenoma removal, the 3-year risk of metachronous advanced CRN (ACRN) in patients aged 30 to 39 and 40 to 49 years was lower than in patients ≥50 years old (1.9% and 3.6% vs 8.1%, respectively; P < .001 and .008). After low-risk adenoma removal, the 5-year risk of metachronous ACRN in patients aged 30 to 39 and 40 to 49 years was lower than in patients ≥50 years old (2.8% and 3.3% vs 5.9%, respectively; P = .010 and .031). The risk of metachronous ACRN or ≥3 adenomas in patients aged 30 to 39 years was significantly lower than in patients aged 40 to 49 years. Age remained significantly associated with the risk of metachronous ACRN despite adjustments for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of metachronous ACRN was lower in patients aged <50 years than in those aged ≥50 years; thus, the postpolypectomy surveillance interval may be extendable to >3 and 5 years in high-risk and low-risk adenoma groups, respectively, in patients aged <50 years.

Adenoma detection rate influences the risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in low-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In individuals with either no or 1 to 2 nonadvanced adenomas, future risks of advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) vary according to clinical risk factors. However, little is known about the association between the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and the risk for metachronous AN in patients with low-risk adenomas.

METHODS

We identified 7171 participants with no or 1 to 2 nonadvanced adenomas at first-time screening colonoscopy. The risk of metachronous AN was investigated at surveillance colonoscopy, according to clinical characteristics and the ADR.

RESULTS

In multivariate analysis the risk for metachronous AN was strongly associated with increasing age, male sex, increasing number of adenomas, and the ADR of the endoscopist. With the ADR modeled as a continuous variable, each 1.0% increase in the rate of ADR predicted a 3.0% decrease in the risk of metachronous AN (adjusted odds ratio [OR], .97; 95% confidence interval [CI], .95-.99). With the ADR modeled using a binary cut-off (32%), the risk of metachronous AN was reduced in patients of endoscopists with an ADR ≥32% (adjusted OR, .53; 95% CI, .35-.83). Moreover, the risk of metachronous AN was reduced (adjusted OR, .66; 95% CI, .46-.95) in patients of endoscopists with an ADR in the highest tertile, compared with patients of endoscopists with ADRs in the lowest tertile. The impact of ADR on metachronous AN was significant for patients with low-risk adenomas rather than patients with no adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with low-risk adenomas, the ADR of the endoscopist was inversely associated with the risk of metachronous AN.

Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations.

METHODS

We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.