Impact of Patient Adherence to Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Colonoscopy Following a Positive Test on Clinical Outcomes

Oncology: What You May Have Missed in 2023

Advances in oncology treatment methods have improved outcomes and quality of life for patients with cancer. However, care of these patients can be complex, and the contribution of physicians from different specialties is crucial. This article highlights important publications from 2023 on topics across a wide spectrum relating to the management of oncology patients. The literature was screened for significant new evidence that is relevant to internal medicine specialists and subspecialists whose focus is not oncology. Two articles address the importance of social interventions targeting end-of-life care for low-income and minority patients and the well-being of caregivers. Two additional articles address screening considerations in patients at risk for colorectal and lung cancer. Two more articles address safe use of hormone-related therapies to treat symptoms of menopause and prevent disease recurrence or progression in patients diagnosed with noninvasive breast neoplasia. Finally, several articles were included on topics related to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer, use of cannabinoids for cancer pain control, chronic autoimmune adverse effects related to use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the incidence of second primary neoplasms.

High accuracy of a blood ctDNA-based multimodal test to detect colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a minimally invasive and convenient blood-based screening strategy that may increase effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A novel multimodal ctDNA-based blood assay that integrates genomics, epigenomics and fragmentomics, as well as proteomics in a refined version, was tested in blood samples from two cohorts: (i) consecutive fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive individuals from the CRC Barcelona stool-based screening program; (ii) patients diagnosed with CRC. Primary endpoint was the performance of the test to detect CRC at different tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stages. Secondary endpoint was the ability of the test to detect advanced precancerous lesions (advanced adenoma or advanced serrated lesion).

RESULTS

A total of 623 blood samples were analyzed in the primary analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of the assay to detect CRC was 93% and 90%, respectively. The sensitivity of CRC detection according to TNM stages was 84% for stage I, 94% for stage II and 96% for stage III (70/73) (P< 0.024). Sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions was 23% with a refined version of the test (including protein and updating bioinformatic thresholding).

CONCLUSION

A blood-based multimodal ctDNA assay detected CRC with high accuracy. This minimally invasive, accessible and convenient assay may help to increase the effectiveness of CRC screening.

Cancer Screening in the United States During the Second Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To examine whether cancer screening prevalence in the United States during 2021 has returned to prepandemic levels using nationally representative data.

METHODS

Information on receipt of age-eligible screening for breast (women age 50-74 years), cervical (women without a hysterectomy age 21-65 years), prostate (men age 55-69 years), and colorectal cancer (men and women age 50-75 years) according to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations was obtained from the 2019 and 2021 National Health Interview Survey. Past-year screening prevalence in 2019 and 2021 and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs), 2021 versus 2019, with their 95% CIs were calculated using complex survey logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between 2019 and 2021, past-year screening in the United States decreased from 59.9% to 57.1% (aPR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) for breast cancer, from 45.3% to 39.0% (aPR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.89) for cervical cancer, and from 39.5% to 36.3% (aPR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.97) for prostate cancer. Declines were most notable for non-Hispanic Asian persons. Colorectal cancer screening prevalence remained unchanged because an increase in past-year stool testing (from 7.0% to 10.3%; aPR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.58) offset a decline in colonoscopy (from 15.5% to 13.8%; aPR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.95). The increase in stool testing was most pronounced in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations and in persons with low socioeconomic status.

CONCLUSION

Past-year screening prevalence for breast, cervical, and prostate cancer among age-eligible adults in the United States continued to be lower than prepandemic levels in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, reinforcing the importance of return to screening health system outreach and media campaigns. The large increase in stool testing emphasizes the role of home-based screening during health care system disruptions.

[Media: see text].

Performance of different colorectal cancer screening strategies: a long-term passive follow-up population-based screening program in Beijing, China

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the performance of the risk assessment questionnaire and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program to provide timely evidence for tailored screening strategies in China.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted using data from Beijing Cancer Screening Prospective Cohort Study (BCSPCS). A risk assessment questionnaire and FIT were selected as the primary screening methods, and participants with any positive results were referred to undergo a diagnostic colonoscopy.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2020, 148,636 Beijing residents aged 40-69 years were invited from designated communities, with 147,807 finishing the risk assessment questionnaire and 115,606 (78.2%) completing the FIT. Among the 42,969 (29.1%) high-risk CRC participants, 23,824 (55.4%) underwent colonoscopy. One year after enrollment, all subjects were linked to the Beijing Cancer Registry (BCR) database and 241 cases of CRC were confirmed. The CRC incidence rate was 58.2/100,000 for the low-risk arm and 418.9/100,000 for the high-risk arm. For participants who underwent colonoscopy, 91 CRC cases were detected, with a detection rate of 91.9% and 63.7% of them were early-stage cases. Furthermore, the sensitivities of utilizing the risk assessment questionnaire alone, FIT alone, combined risk assessment questionnaire and FIT were 75.7%, 50.1%, and 95.1%, and the specificities were 75.3%, 87.3%, and 70.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Beijing CRC screening program can effectively detect early-onset CRC; however, the compliance with colonoscopy still needs to be improved.

Inappropriate Multi-Target Stool DNA Use for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Risks, Compliance, and Outcomes

Background Inappropriate or "off-label" use of multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) tests refers to their use in patients for whom colonoscopy or no testing at all is warranted. Examples include a positive family history of colorectal cancer, a history of inflammatory bowel disease, or medical issues necessitating diagnostic colonoscopy, among others. Current understanding of off-label mt-sDNA use for colorectal cancer screening, its associated risks, and outcomes is lacking. We examined off-label mt-sDNA prescription and compliance with testing in an outpatient setting in southeast Michigan. Aims The primary aims of the study were determining the extent of off-label mt-sDNA testing and compliance, and results of all testing, as well as demographic factors associated with off-label prescriptions. The secondary aims were to examine explanations for incomplete testing and factors contributing to successful completion. Methods Using a retrospective design, we identified mt-sDNA orders from outpatient internal medicine clinics between January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019, to evaluate the proportion of off-label mt-sDNA, results of testing, and follow-up colonoscopies up to one year after order placement. Patients were categorized as "off-label" if any inappropriate criteria were met. Statistical analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes. Results From 679 mt-sDNA orders within the study period, 81 (12.1%) had at least one off-label criterion for testing. In total, 404/679 (59.5%) patients completed testing. Lack of follow-up comprised the majority of incompletions (216/275; 78.6%). Only 52 (70.3%) out of 74 positive results were followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. Retired employment status (OR = 1.87; 95%CI, 1.17-2.98; P = 0.008) and age of 76 years or older (OR = 2.28; 95%CI, 0.99-5.21; P = 0.044) were significantly associated with increased risk of off-label mt-sDNA prescription. Increasing age range was associated with higher test completion (χ2 (5) = 12.085, p = 0.034). Multinomial logistic regression revealed an increasing age range (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54; P = 0.004), predictive of a positive mt-sDNA result for both groups. There was no significant difference between off-label or on-label groups in the mean number of resected polyps or pathology scores on follow-up colonoscopy. Conclusions Off-label mt-sDNA use remains a concern in the outpatient setting. Compliance for test completion and follow-up colonoscopy for positive results require further improvement. Our findings shed new light on the factors associated with off-label testing while reiterating its burden. We also describe common reasons for incomplete tests in an attempt to augment future colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiatives.

Life-years gained resulting from screening colonoscopy compared with follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal screening test

Screening colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) are typically covered without patient cost-sharing, whereas follow-up colonoscopies for positive stool-based screening tests often incur patient costs. The objective of this analysis was to estimate and compare the life-years gained (LYG) per average-risk screening colonoscopy and follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test to better inform CRC coverage policy and reimbursement decisions. CRC outcomes from screening and follow-up colonoscopies versus no screening were estimated using CRC-AIM in a simulated population of average-risk individuals screened between ages 45-75 years. The LYG/colonoscopy per 1000 individuals was 0.09 for screening colonoscopy and 0.29 for follow-up colonoscopy. 0.01 and 0.04 CRC cases and 0.01 and 0.02 CRC deaths were averted per screening and follow-up colonoscopies, respectively. Coverage policies should be revised to encourage individuals to complete recommended screening processes.