Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial

Prevalence of neoplasia at colonoscopy among testicular cancer survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We determined the yield of colonoscopy in TCS to assess its potential in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a colonoscopy screening study among TCS in four Dutch hospitals to assess the yield of colorectal neoplasia. Neoplasia was defined as adenomas, serrated polyps (SPs), advanced adenomas (AAs: ≥10 mm diameter, high-grade dysplasia or ≥25% villous component), advanced serrated polyps (ASPs: ≥10 mm diameter or dysplasia) or CRC. Advanced neoplasia (AN) was defined as AA, ASP or CRC. Colonoscopy yield was compared to average-risk American males who underwent screening colonoscopy (n = 24,193) using a propensity score matched analysis, adjusted for age, smoking status, alcohol consumption and body mass index. A total of 137 TCS underwent colonoscopy. Median age was 50 years among TCS (IQR 43-57) vs 55 years (IQR 51-62) among American controls. A total of 126 TCS were matched to 602 controls. The prevalence of AN was higher in TCS than in controls (8.7% vs 1.7%; P = .0002). Nonadvanced adenomas and SPs were detected in 45.2% of TCS vs 5.5% of controls (P < .0001). No lesions were detected in 46.0% of TCS vs 92.9% of controls (P < .0001). TCS treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have a higher prevalence of neoplasia and AN than matched controls. These results support our hypothesis that platinum-based chemotherapy increases the risk of colorectal neoplasia in TCS. Cost-effectiveness studies are warranted to ascertain the threshold of AN prevalence that justifies the recommendation of colonoscopy for TCS.

The evolution of informed consent in gastroenterology

With medical litigation on the rise, physicians require a nuanced understanding of the legalities of consenting patients to reduce their liability while practising evidence-based medicine. This study aims to a) clarify the legal duties of gastroenterologists in the UK and USA when gaining informed consent and b) provide recommendations at the international and physician level to improve the consent process and reduce liability.A bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science database with the MeSH terms "gastroenterology" and "informed consent" yielded 383 articles, of which 228 were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the top 50 articles, 48% were from American institutions and 16% were from the UK. Thematic analysis showed 72% of the articles discussed informed consent in relation to diagnostic procedures, 14% regarding treatment, and 14% regarding research participation.Both the USA and the UK have progressed from previously paternalistic Natanson case (1960) and Bolam test (1957), respectively, where physicians were held to the standard of a "reasonable and prudent medical doctor". The American Canterbury case (1972) and the British Montgomery case (2015) radically shifted the standard of disclosure during the consent process by requiring physicians to explain all information pertinent to a "reasonable patient".It is our recommendation that a two-pronged approach be taken; a) creation of international guidelines for consenting patients for invasive procedures in gastroenterology, and b) development of internationally standardised endoscopy consent forms containing all the details pertinent to a "reasonable patient".

Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Objective

This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.

Methods

We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.

Results

We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.

Discussion

The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies' findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies' methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.

Can Computed Tomography Colonography Replace Optical Colonoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Lesions?: State of the Art

Colorectal cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Optical colonoscopy (OC) is widely accepted as the reference standard for the screening of colorectal polyps and cancers, and computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a valid alternative to OC. The purpose of this review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of OC and CTC for colorectal lesions. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, and 18 articles were included. CTC has emerged in recent years as a potential screening examination with high accuracy for the detection of colorectal lesions. However, the clinical application of CTC as a screening technique is limited because it is highly dependent on the size of the lesions and has poor performance in detecting individual lesions <5 mm or flat lesions, which, although rarely, can have a malignant potential.

Clinical Validation of a Multitarget Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening : A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study

BACKGROUND

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet it leaves room for improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a multitarget FIT (mtFIT) with better diagnostic performance than FIT.

DESIGN

Diagnostic test accuracy study.

SETTING

Colonoscopy-controlled series.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons (n = 1284) from a screening (n = 1038) and referral (n = 246) population were classified by their most advanced lesion (CRC [n = 47], advanced adenoma [n = 135], advanced serrated polyp [n = 30], nonadvanced adenoma [n = 250], and nonadvanced serrated polyp [n = 53]), along with control participants (n = 769).

MEASUREMENTS

Antibody-based assays were developed and applied to leftover FIT material. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was applied to biomarker concentrations to identify the optimal combination for detecting advanced neoplasia. Performance of this combination, the mtFIT, was cross-validated using a leave-one-out approach and compared with FIT at equal specificity.

RESULTS

The CART analysis showed a combination of hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2-the mtFIT-to have a cross-validated sensitivity for advanced neoplasia of 42.9% (95% CI, 36.2% to 49.9%) versus 37.3% (CI, 30.7% to 44.2%) for FIT (P = 0.025), with equal specificity of 96.6%. In particular, cross-validated sensitivity for advanced adenomas increased from 28.1% (CI, 20.8% to 36.5%) to 37.8% (CI, 29.6% to 46.5%) (P = 0.006). On the basis of these results, early health technology assessment indicated that mtFIT-based screening could be cost-effective compared with FIT.

LIMITATION

Study population is enriched with persons from a referral population.

CONCLUSION

Compared with FIT, the mtFIT showed better diagnostic accuracy in detecting advanced neoplasia because of an increased detection of advanced adenomas. Moreover, early health technology assessment indicated that these results provide a sound basis to pursue further development of mtFIT as a future test for population-based CRC screening. A prospective screening trial is in preparation.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Stand Up to Cancer/Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and HealthHolland.

Individualized faecal immunochemical test cut-off based on age and sex in colorectal cancer screening

The risk of having colorectal cancer (CRC) or its precursors vary with age and sex. Yet, most CRC screening programs using the quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) use a uniform FIT cut-off. We aimed to calculate individualized FIT cut-offs based on age and sex. Data from a study of 1,112 asymptomatic average-risk screening participants undergoing colonoscopy without preselection were used to build a logistic regression model to calculate the risk of having advanced neoplasia (AN) at colonoscopy using age, sex, and FIT concentration as variables. We calculated age- and sex-adjusted FIT cut-off concentrations based on a uniform risk threshold. In a total of 101 of the 1,112 participants AN was detected at colonoscopy. We selected a risk threshold that would produce a specificity of 96.9% in the study group, matching the specificity of FIT at a cut-off of 20 µg Hb/g faeces. At this threshold, age- and sex-adjusted FIT cut-off concentrations ranged from 36.9 µg Hb/g faeces for 50-year-old women to 9.5 µg Hb/g faeces for 75-year old men. At this level of specificity, the risk-based model reached a sensitivity for AN of 28.7% (95%CI: 20.8 to 38.2) versus 27.7% (95%CI: 19.9 to 37.1) for FIT only. Using a risk threshold instead of a uniform FIT-based threshold for inviting screening participants to follow-up colonoscopy ensures that everyone has a comparable risk of AN prior to colonoscopy and may improve the detection of advanced neoplasia, although the absolute magnitude of the increase is likely to be limited.

Diagnostic Yield of One-Time Colonoscopy vs One-Time Flexible Sigmoidoscopy vs Multiple Rounds of Mailed Fecal Immunohistochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We compared the diagnostic yields of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

A total of 30,007 asymptomatic persons, 50-74 years old, were invited for CRC screening in the Netherlands. Participants were assigned to groups that received 4 rounds of FIT (mailed to 15,046 participants), once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 8407), or once-only colonoscopy (n = 6600). Patients with positive results from the FIT (≥10 μg Hb/g feces) were referred for colonoscopy. Patients who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy were referred for colonoscopy if they had a polyp of ≥10 mm; adenoma with ≥25% villous histology or high-grade dysplasia; sessile serrated adenoma; ≥3 adenomas; ≥20 hyperplastic polyps; or invasive CRC. The primary outcome was number of advanced neoplasia detected (diagnostic yield) by each test. Secondary outcomes were number of colonoscopies needed to detect advanced neoplasia and number of interval CRCs found during each primary screening test. Patients with interval CRCs were found through linkage with Netherlands Cancer Registry. Advanced neoplasia were defined as CRC, adenomas ≥ 10 mm, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, or adenomas with a villous component of at least 25%.

RESULTS

The cumulative participation rate was significantly higher for FIT screening (73%) than for flexible sigmoidoscopy (31%; P < .001) or colonoscopy (24%; P < .001). The percentage of colonoscopies among invitees was higher for colonoscopy (24%) compared to FIT (13%; P < .001) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (3%; P < .001). In the intention to screen analysis, the cumulative diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia was higher with FIT screening (4.5%; 95% CI 4.2-4.9) than with colonoscopy (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.8-2.6) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (2.3%; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7). In the as-screened analysis, the cumulative yield of advanced neoplasia was higher for endoscopic screening with colonoscopy (9.1%; 95% CI, 7.7-10.7) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (7.4%; 95% CI, 6.5-8.5) than with the FIT (6.1%; 95% CI, 5.7-6.6). All 3 screening strategies detected a similar proportion of patients with CRC. Follow-up times differed for each test (median 8.3 years for FIT and flexible sigmoidoscopy and 5.8 years for colonoscopy). Proportions of patients that developed interval CRC were 0.13% for persons with a negative result from FIT, 0.09% for persons with a negative result from flexible sigmoidoscopy, and 0.01% for persons with a negative result from colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Mailed multiple-round FITs detect significantly more advanced neoplasia, on a population level, compared with once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy screening. Significantly fewer colonoscopies are required by individuals screened by multiple FITs. Trialregister.nl numbers: first round, NTR1096; second round and additional invitees, NTR1512; fourth round, NTR5874; COCOS trial NTR1829.

Proteins in stool as biomarkers for non-invasive detection of colorectal adenomas with high risk of progression

Screening to detect colorectal cancer (CRC) in an early or premalignant state is an effective method to reduce CRC mortality rates. Current stool-based screening tests, e.g. fecal immunochemical test (FIT), have a suboptimal sensitivity for colorectal adenomas and difficulty distinguishing adenomas at high risk of progressing to cancer from those at lower risk. We aimed to identify stool protein biomarker panels that can be used for the early detection of high-risk adenomas and CRC. Proteomics data (LC-MS/MS) were collected on stool samples from adenoma (n = 71) and CRC patients (n = 81) as well as controls (n = 129). Colorectal adenoma tissue samples were characterized by low-coverage whole-genome sequencing to determine their risk of progression based on specific DNA copy number changes. Proteomics data were used for logistic regression modeling to establish protein biomarker panels. In total, 15 of the adenomas (15.8%) were defined as high risk of progressing to cancer. A protein panel, consisting of haptoglobin (Hp), LAMP1, SYNE2, and ANXA6, was identified for the detection of high-risk adenomas (sensitivity of 53% at specificity of 95%). Two panels, one consisting of Hp and LRG1 and one of Hp, LRG1, RBP4, and FN1, were identified for high-risk adenomas and CRCs detection (sensitivity of 66% and 62%, respectively, at specificity of 95%). Validation of Hp as a biomarker for high-risk adenomas and CRCs was performed using an antibody-based assay in FIT samples from a subset of individuals from the discovery series (n = 158) and an independent validation series (n = 795). Hp protein was significantly more abundant in high-risk adenoma FIT samples compared to controls in the discovery (p = 0.036) and the validation series (p = 9e-5). We conclude that Hp, LAMP1, SYNE2, LRG1, RBP4, FN1, and ANXA6 may be of value as stool biomarkers for early detection of high-risk adenomas and CRCs. © 2019 Authors. Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Multitarget Stool DNA Test Performance in an Average-Risk Colorectal Cancer Screening Population

INTRODUCTION

We set out to evaluate the performance of a multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) in an average-risk colonoscopy-controlled colorectal cancer (CRC) screening population. MT-sDNA stool test results were evaluated against fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results for the detection of different lesions, including molecularly defined high-risk adenomas and several other tumor characteristics.

METHODS

Whole stool samples (n = 1,047) were prospectively collected and subjected to an MT-sDNA test, which tests for KRAS mutations, NDRG4 and BMP3 promoter methylation, and hemoglobin. Results for detecting CRC (n = 7), advanced precancerous lesions (advanced adenoma [AA] and advanced serrated polyps; n = 119), and non-AAs (n = 191) were compared with those of FIT alone (thresholds of 50, 75, and 100 hemoglobin/mL). AAs with high risk of progression were defined by the presence of specific DNA copy number events as measured by low-pass whole genome sequencing.

RESULTS

The MT-sDNA test was more sensitive than FIT alone in detecting advanced precancerous lesions (46% (55/119) vs 27% (32/119), respectively, P < 0.001). Specificities among individuals with nonadvanced or negative findings (controls) were 89% (791/888) and 93% (828/888) for MT-sDNA and FIT testing, respectively. A positive MT-sDNA test was associated with multiple lesions (P = 0.005), larger lesions (P = 0.03), and lesions with tubulovillous architecture (P = 0.04). The sensitivity of the MT-sDNA test or FIT in detecting individuals with high-risk AAs (n = 19) from individuals with low-risk AAs (n = 52) was not significantly different.

DISCUSSION

In an average-risk screening population, the MT-sDNA test has an increased sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions compared with FIT alone. AAs with a high risk of progression were not detected with significantly higher sensitivity by MT-sDNA or FIT.

Near-infrared fluorescence imaging for sentinel lymph node identification in colon cancer: a prospective single-center study and systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging has the potential to overcome the current drawbacks of sentinel lymph node mapping (SLNM) in colon cancer. Our aim was to provide an overview of current SLNM performance and of factors influencing successful sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification using NIR fluorescence imaging in colon cancer.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify currently used methods and results. Additionally, we performed a single-center study using indocyanine green (ICG) as SLNM dye in colon cancer patients scheduled for a laparoscopic colectomy. SLNs were analyzed with conventional hematoxylin-and-eosin staining and additionally with serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry (extended histopathological assessment). A true-positive procedure was defined as a tumor-positive SLN either by conventional hematoxylin-and-eosin staining or by extended histopathological assessment, independently of regional lymph node status. SLN procedures were determined to be true negatives if SLNs and regional lymph nodes revealed no metastases after conventional and advanced histopathology. SLN procedures yielding tumor-negative SLNs in combination with tumor-positive regional lymph nodes were classified as false negatives. Sensitivity, negative predictive value and detection rate were calculated.

Results

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 8 studies describing 227 SLN procedures. A pooled sensitivity of 0.63 (95% CI 0.51–0.74), negative predictive value 0.81 (95% CI 0.73–0.86) and detection rate of 0.94 (95% CI 0.85–0.97) were found. Upstaging as a result of extended histopathological assessment was 0.15 (95% CI 0.07–0.25). In our single-center study, we included 30 patients. Five false-negative SLNs were identified, resulting in a sensitivity of 44% and negative predictive value of 80%, with a detection rate of 89.7%. Eight patients had lymph node metastases, in three cases detected after extended pathological assessment, resulting in an upstaging of 13% (3 of 23 patients with negative nodes by conventional hematoxylin and eosin staining).

Conclusions

Several anatomical and technical difficulties make SLNM with NIR fluorescence imaging in colon cancer particularly challenging when compared to other types of cancer. As a consequence, reports of SLNM accuracy vary widely. Future studies should try to standardize the SLNM procedure and focus on early-stage colon tumors, validation of tracer composition, injection mode and improvement of real-time optical guidance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10151-019-02107-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perioperative PET/CT lymphoscintigraphy and fluorescent real-time imaging for sentinel lymph node mapping in early staged colon cancer

Purpose

Using current optical imaging techniques and gamma imaging modalities, perioperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification in colon cancer can be difficult when the SLN is located near the primary tumour or beneath a thick layer of (fat) tissue. Sentinel lymph node mapping using PET/CT lymphoscintigraphy combined with real-time visualization of the SLN using near-infrared imaging has shown promising results in several types of cancer and may facilitate the successful identification of the number and location of the SLN in early colon cancer.

Methods

Clinical feasibility of PET/CT lymphoscintigraphy using preoperative endoscopically injected [⁸⁹Zr]Zr-Nanocoll and intraoperative injection of the near-infrared (NIR) tracer Indocyanine Green (ICG) was evaluated in ten early colon cancer patients. Three preoperative PET/CT scans and an additional ex vivo scan of the specimen were performed after submucosal injection of [⁸⁹Zr]Zr-Nanocoll. All SLNs and other lymph nodes underwent extensive pathological examination for metastases. A histopathological proven lymph node visible at preoperative PET/CT and identified at PET/CT of the specimen was defined as SLN.

Results

A total of 27 SLNs were harvested in seven out of eight patients with successful injection of both tracers. In one patient no SLNs were assigned preoperatively. In two patients injection of [⁸⁹Zr]Zr-Nanocoll failed due to incorrect needle positioning. Twenty-one (78%) SLNs were found intraoperatively using NIR-imaging. Eleven of the 27 (41%) SLNs were located near the primary tumour (< 2 cm). Those six SLNs not found intraoperatively with NIR-imaging were all located close to the tumour. In all seven patients at least one SLN could be assigned at preoperative imaging 24 h after tracer administration. One SLN contained metastases detected by immunohistochemistry. No metastases were found in the non-SLNs.

Conclusions

This study shows the potential of preoperative PET/CT lymphoscintigraphy to inform the surgeon about the number and location of SLNs in patients with early colon cancer. The additional use of NIR-imaging allows for intraoperative identification of these SLNs which are invisible with conventional white light imaging. Further research is necessary to improve and simplify the technique. We recommend perioperative SLN identification using a preoperative lymphoscintigraphy scan just before surgery approximately 24 h after injection. Additionally a postoperative scan of the specimen combined with intraoperative real-time NIR-imaging should be performed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00259-019-04284-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin (Hb) are increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to review, summarize and compare reported diagnostic performance of various FITs. PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 24, 2017. Data on diagnostic performance of quantitative FITs, conducted in colonoscopy-controlled average-risk screening populations, were extracted. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and correlations between thresholds, positivity rates (PRs), sensitivities and specificities were assessed. Seven test brands were investigated across 22 studies. Although reported sensitivities for CRC, advanced adenoma (AA) and any advanced neoplasm (AN) varied widely (ranges: 25-100%, 6-44% and 9-60%, respectively), with specificities for AN ranging from 82% to 99%, the estimates were very close to the respective summary ROC curves whose areas under the curve (95% CI) were 0.905 (0.88-0.94), 0.683 (0.67-0.70) and 0.710 (0.70-0.72) for CRC, AA and AN, respectively. The seemingly large heterogeneity essentially reflected variations in test thresholds (range: 2-82 µg Hb/g feces) and showed moderate correlations with sensitivity (r = -0.49) and specificity (r = 0.60) for AN. By contrast, observed PRs (range: 1-21%) almost perfectly correlated with sensitivity (r = 0.84) and specificity (r = -0.94) for AN. The apparent large heterogeneity in diagnostic performance between various FITs can be almost completely overcome by appropriate threshold adjustments. Instead of simply applying the threshold recommended by the manufacturer, screening programs should adjust the threshold to yield a desired PR which is a very good proxy indicator for the specificity and the subsequent colonoscopy workload.

Association Between Concentrations of Hemoglobin Determined by Fecal Immunochemical Tests and Long-term Development of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is rapidly gaining ground worldwide. FITs are invariably used in a dichotomous manner using pre-specified cut-off values. To optimize FIT-based screening programs, we investigated the association between fecal hemoglobin (_fHb) concentrations below the FIT cut-off value and later development of colorectal advanced neoplasia (AN).

METHODS

We analyzed data collected from a population-based study of 9561 average-risk subjects (50-74 years old) in the Netherlands who were offered 4 rounds of FIT screening for CRC from November 2006 through December 2014. We analyzed data from 7663 participants screened at least once and found to have a negative FIT result at baseline (below the cut-off value of 10 μg Hb/ g feces). Participants were followed for a median of 4.7 years (interquartile range, 2.0-6.1 years); CRCs diagnosed outside the screening program were identified from the Dutch Comprehensive Cancer Centre database. Hazard ratios for AN were determined using Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. Logistic regression techniques were used to calculate risks of AN after consecutive fHb concentrations below the cut-off value.

RESULTS

After 8 years of follow-up, participants with baseline concentrations of 8-10 μg fHb/g had a higher cumulative incidence of AN (33%) than participants with 0 μg fHb/g (5%) (P < .001). Multi-variate hazard ratios increased from 1.2 for subjects with concentrations of 0-2 μg fHb/g to 8.2 for subjects with concentrations of 8-10 μg fHb/g (P < .001). Participants with 2 consecutive fHb concentrations of 8 μg Hb/g had a 14-fold increase in risk of AN compared with participants with 2 consecutive fHb concentrations of 0 μg Hb/g (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a population-based study of average-risk individuals with a FIT result below the cut-off value, we associated baseline concentrations of 8-10 μg fHb/g with an increased risk of AN compared with baseline concentrations of 0 μg fHb/g. Baseline and consecutive fHb concentrations are independent predictors for incident AN. This information might be used in designing personalized strategies for population-based CRC screening and reduce unnecessary repeat tests. Trialregister.nl no: first round, NTR1096; second round and additional invitees, NTR1512.

Beliefs and Attitudes to Bowel Cancer Screening in Patients with CKD: A Semistructured Interview Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Bowel cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in people with CKD. Shared decision making regarding cancer screening is particularly complex in CKD and requires an understanding of patients' values and priorities, which remain largely unknown. Our study aimed to describe the beliefs and attitudes to bowel cancer screening in patients with CKD.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Face to face, semistructured interviews were conducted from April of 2014 to December of 2015 with 38 participants ages 39-78 years old with CKD stages 3-5, on dialysis, or transplant recipients from four renal units in Australia and New Zealand. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: invisibility of cancer (unspoken stigma, ambiguity of risk, and absence of symptomatic prompting); prioritizing kidney disease (preserving the chance of transplantation, over-riding attention to kidney disease, protecting graft survival, and showing loyalty to the donor); preventing the crisis of cancer (evading severe consequences and cognizant of susceptibility); cognitive resistance (reluctance to perform a repulsive procedure, intensifying disease burden threshold, anxiety of a positive test, and accepting the inevitable); and pragmatic accessibility (negligible financial effect, convenience, and protecting anonymity).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CKD understand the potential health benefits of bowel cancer screening, but they are primarily committed to their kidney health. Their decisions regarding screening revolve around their present health needs, priorities, and concerns. Explicit consideration of the potential practical and psychosocial burdens that bowel cancer screening may impose on patients in addition to kidney disease and current treatment is suggested to minimize decisional conflict and improve patient satisfaction and health care outcomes in CKD.

CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.

Fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: The gender dilemma

BACKGROUND

Despite differences between men and women in incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its precursors, screening programs consistently use the same strategy for both genders.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to illustrate the effects of gender-tailored screening, including the effects on miss rates of advanced neoplasia (AN).

METHODS

Participants (age 50-75 years) in a colonoscopy screening program were asked to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) before colonoscopy. Positivity rates, sensitivity and specificity for detection of AN at multiple cut-offs were determined. Absolute numbers of detected and missed AN per 1000 screenees were calculated.

RESULTS

In total 1,256 individuals underwent FIT and colonoscopy, 51% male (median age 61 years; IQR 56-66) and 49% female (median age 60 years; IQR 55-65). At all cut-offs men had higher positivity rates than women, ranging from 3.8% to 10.8% versus 3.2% to 4.8%. Sensitivity for AN was higher in men than women; 40%-25% and 35%-22%, respectively. More AN were found and missed in absolute numbers in men at all cut-offs.

CONCLUSION

More AN were both detected and missed in men compared to women at all cut-offs. Gender-tailored cut-offs could either level sensitivity in men and women (i.e., lower cut-off in women) or level the amount of missed lesions (i.e., lower cut-off in men).

Adding family history to faecal immunochemical testing increases the detection of advanced neoplasia in a colorectal cancer screening programme

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has suboptimal sensitivity for detecting advanced neoplasia. To increase its performance, FIT could be combined with other risk factors.

AIM

To evaluate the incremental yield of a screening programme using a positive FIT or a CRC family history, to offer a diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

For this post hoc analysis, data were collected in the colonoscopy arm of a colonoscopy or colonography for screening study. In this study, 6600 randomly selected, asymptomatic men and women (50-75 years) were invited for screening colonoscopy. 1112 Participants completed a FIT and a questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. We compared the yield of FIT-only and FIT combined with CRC family history, defined as having one or more first-degree relatives with CRC.

RESULTS

At a 10 μg Hb/g faeces FIT-positivity threshold the combined strategy would increase the yield from 36 (3.2%; CI: 2.4-4.5%) to 53 (4.8%; CI: 3.7-6.2%) cases of advanced neoplasia, at the expense of 148 additional negative colonoscopies. Sensitivity in detecting advanced neoplasia would increase from 36% (CI: 26-46%) to 52% (CI: 42-63%), whereas specificity would decrease from 93% (CI: 92-95%) to 79% (CI: 76-81%). The strategy will be preferred if one accepts 8.8 false positives for every additional participant in whom advanced neoplasia can be detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering colonoscopy to those with a positive FIT or CRC family history increases the yield of a FIT-based screening programme. Depending on the number of negative colonoscopies one accepts, this combined approach can be considered for improving CRC screening.

Burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography in patients with screen-detected 6-9 mm polyps

Purpose

We assessed the burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography (CTC) performed in patients having 6–9 mm colorectal polyps on primary screening CTC. Additionally, we compared the burden of primary and surveillance CTC.

Materials and methods

In an invitational population-based CTC screening trial, 101 persons were diagnosed with <3 polyps 6–9 mm, for which surveillance CTC after 3 years was advised. Validated questionnaires regarding expected and perceived burden (5-point Likert scales) were completed before and after index and surveillance CTC, also including items on burden of waiting for surveillance CTC. McNemar’s test was used for comparison after dichotomization.

Results

Seventy-eight (77 %) of 101 invitees underwent surveillance CTC, of which 66 (85 %) completed the expected and 62 (79 %) the perceived burden questionnaire. The majority of participants (73 %) reported the experience of waiting for surveillance CTC as ‘never’ or ‘only sometimes’ burdensome. There was almost no difference in expected and perceived burden between surveillance and index CTC. Waiting for the results after the procedure was significantly more burdensome for surveillance CTC than for index CTC (23 vs. 8 %; p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Waiting for surveillance CTC after primary CTC screening caused little or no burden for surveillance participants. In general, the burden of surveillance and index CTC were comparable.

Key points

• Waiting for surveillance CTC within a CRC screening caused little burden

• The vast majority never or only sometimes thought about their polyp(s)

• In general, the burden of index and surveillance CTC were comparable

• Awaiting results was more burdensome for surveillance than for index CTC

CT-Colonography vs. Colonoscopy for Detection of High-Risk Sessile Serrated Polyps

OBJECTIVES

Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) are suggested to be the precursors of 15-30% of all colorectal cancers (CRCs). Therefore, CRC screening modalities should also be designed to detect high-risk SSPs. We compared computed tomography colonography (CTC) with colonoscopy-based screening for the detection of high-risk SSPs in average-risk individuals.

METHODS

Data from a randomized controlled trial that compared CTC with colonoscopy for population screening were used for the analysis. Individuals diagnosed at CTC with a lesion ≥10 mm in size were referred for colonoscopy. Individuals with only 6-9 mm lesions were offered surveillance CTC. This surveillance CTC was followed by a colonoscopy when a lesion ≥6 mm was detected. Yield of both was accumulated to mimic current American College of Radiology CTC referral strategy (referral of individuals with any lesion ≥6 mm). Per participant detection of ≥1 high-risk (dysplastic and/or ≥10 mm) SSP was compared with colonoscopy using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 8,844 individuals were invited to participate (in 2:1 allocation), of which 1,276 colonoscopy and 982 CTC invitees participated in the study. In the colonoscopy arm, 4.3% of individuals were diagnosed with ≥1 high-risk SSP, compared with 0.8% in the CTC arm (odds ratio (OR) 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6-11.6; P<0.001). In total, 3.1% of individuals in the colonoscopy arm were diagnosed with high-risk SSPs as most advanced lesion, compared with 0.4% in the CTC arm (OR 7.7; 95% CI 2.7-21.6; P<0.001). The current CTC strategy showed a marked lower detection for especially flat high-risk SSPs (17 vs. 0), high-risk SSP located in the proximal colon (32 vs. 1), and SSPs with dysplasia (30 vs. 1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled setting, the detection rate of high-risk SSPs was significantly higher with colonoscopy than CTC. These results might have implications for CTC as a CRC modality for opportunistic screening in average-risk adults.

Smoking status informs about the risk of advanced serrated polyps in a screening population

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Evidence has accumulated that approximately 15 % to 30 % of colorectal cancers (CRC) arise from serrated polyps (SP). Population screening, therefore, should be designated to detect advanced SP, in addition to advanced adenomas and CRC. We aimed to evaluate whether CRC risk factors also act as risk factors for advanced SP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected in the colonoscopy arm of a multicenter randomized trial comparing colonoscopy with CT-colonography for primary population screening. Information on risk factors was obtained by screening participants before colonoscopy with a validated risk questionnaire. Advanced SP were defined as SP ≥ 10 mm and/or with dysplasia. Endoscopists were instructed to resect all detected lesions. Odds ratios (OR) for the detection of advanced SP as most advanced lesion were calculated using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 6 600 invited participants, 1 426 underwent a colonoscopy and 1 236 also completed the questionnaire. In 40 participants an advanced SP was the most advanced lesion detected. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a strong association between current smoking and the presence of at least one advanced SP (OR 4.50; 95 % CI 2.23 - 8.89; P < 0.001). A significant association was also demonstrated for higher fiber intake (OR 1.36 per 20 gram intake; CI 1.07 - 1.73; P = 0.01). Other clinical CRC risk factors did not show a significant association with the presence of at least one advanced SP in the univariate analyses. Fecal haemoglobin levels were also not significantly associated with the presence of advanced SPs (OR 1.00 per 10 ng/mL CI 0.97 - 1.03, P = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Current smoking is a strong clinical risk factor for the presence of advanced SPs. As such, smoking status could contribute to risk stratification in targeted CRC population screening. Dutch Trial Register: NTR1829 (www.trialregister.nl).

Evolution of Screen-Detected Small (6-9 mm) Polyps After a 3-Year Surveillance Interval: Assessment of Growth With CT Colonography Compared With Histopathology

OBJECTIVES

Volumetric growth assessment has been proposed for predicting advanced histology at surveillance computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC). We examined whether is it possible to predict which small (6-9 mm) polyps are likely to become advanced adenomas at surveillance by assessing volumetric growth.

METHODS

In an invitational population-based CTC screening trial, 93 participants were diagnosed with one or two 6-9 mm polyps as the largest lesion(s). They were offered a 3-year surveillance CTC. Participants in whom surveillance CTC showed lesion(s) of ≥6 mm were offered colonoscopy. Volumetric measurements were performed on index and surveillance CTC, and polyps were classified into growth categories according to ±30% volumetric change (>30% growth as progression, 30% growth to 30% decrease as stable, and >30% decrease as regression). Polyp growth was related to histopathology.

RESULTS

Between July 2012 and May 2014, 70 patients underwent surveillance CTC after a mean surveillance interval of 3.3 years (s.d. 0.3; range 3.0-4.6 years). In all, 33 (35%) of 95 polyps progressed, 36 (38%) remained stable, and 26 (27%) regressed, including an apparent resolution in 13 (14%) polyps. In 68 (83%) of the 82 polyps at surveillance, histopathology was obtained; 15 (47%) of 32 progressing polyps were advanced adenomas, 6 (21%) of 28 stable polyps, and none of the regressing polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of 6-9 mm polyps will not progress to advanced neoplasia within 3 years. Those that do progress to advanced status can in particular be found among the lesions that increased in size on surveillance CTC.

Defining the Risk of Small Polyps: Potential Value of CTC

Although the clinical importance of large colorectal polyps and the benign nature of diminutive polyps are generally accepted, elucidating the clinical significance of small polyps (6-9 mm) could have an enormous impact on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Serial volumetric measurement via CTC may be a valuable method for assessing changes in polyp size. With the recognition of alternative CRC pathways, a more precise understanding of the natural history of small colorectal polyps is needed and data such as those reported by Nolthenius contribute to that knowledge.

Computer tomography colonography participation and yield in patients under surveillance for 6-9 mm polyps in a population-based screening trial

Purpose

Surveillance CT colonography (CTC) is a viable option for 6-9 mm polyps at CTC screening for colorectal cancer. We established participation and diagnostic yield of surveillance and determined overall yield of CTC screening.

Material and methods

In an invitational CTC screening trial 82 of 982 participants harboured 6-9 mm polyps as the largest lesion(s) for which surveillance CTC was advised. Only participants with one or more lesion(s) ≥6 mm at surveillance CTC were offered colonoscopy (OC); 13 had undergone preliminary OC. The surveillance CTC yield was defined as the number of participants with advanced neoplasia in the 82 surveillance participants, and was added to the primary screening yield.

Results

Sixty-five of 82 participants were eligible for surveillance CTC of which 56 (86.2 %) participated. Advanced neoplasia was diagnosed in 15/56 participants (26.8 %) and 9/13 (69.2 %) with preliminary OC. Total surveillance yield was 24/82 (29.3 %). No carcinomas were detected. Adding surveillance results to initial screening CTC yield significantly increased the advanced neoplasia yield per 100 CTC participants (6.1 to 8.6; p < 0.001) and per 100 invitees (2.1 to 2.9; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Surveillance CTC for 6-9 mm polyps has a substantial yield of advanced adenomas and significantly increased the CTC yield in population screening.

Key Points

• The participation rate in surveillance CT colonography (CTC) is 86 %.

• Advanced adenoma prevalence in a 6-9 mm CTC surveillance population is high.

• Surveillance CTC significantly increases the yield of population screening by CTC.

• Surveillance CTC for 6-9 mm polyps is a safe strategy.

• Surveillance CTC is unlikely to yield new important extracolonic findings.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Qualitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Varies With Location of Neoplasia But Not Number of Specimens

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We compared the accuracy of a qualitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in identifying patients with proximal vs distal advanced neoplasia and evaluated whether analysis of 2 specimens performed better than analysis of 1 specimen. Distal advanced neoplasia was defined as colorectal cancer (CRC), any colorectal adenoma ≥10 mm in diameter, high-grade dysplasia, or a lesion with villous or tubulovillous histologic characteristics in a location distal to the splenic flexure, including the descending colon, the rectosigmoid, and the rectum.

METHODS

We collected data from 5343 subjects (50-70 years old) who received 2 FITs (Hemosure; cutoff value, 10 μg hemoglobin/g feces) before colonoscopy in an invitational CRC screening program in Hong Kong from 2008 through 2012. We calculated the FIT's sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value in detecting colorectal neoplasia.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 13.6%, 12.2%, and 6.0% had distal, proximal, and synchronous distal or proximal neoplasia, respectively. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 291 subjects (5.4%); 22 (0.4%) had CRC. FIT detected distal advanced adenoma with 39.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.0%-48.0%) vs proximal advanced adenoma with 25.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 17.3%-34.6%; P = .014), distal advanced neoplasia with 40.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 32.5%-47.9%) vs proximal advanced neoplasia with 27.9% sensitivity (95% CI, 20.0%-37.4%; P = .039), and any distal adenoma ≥10 mm, irrespective of other lesion characteristics, with 39.5% sensitivity (95% CI, 31.0%-48.7%) vs. proximal adenoma with 25.3% sensitivity (95% CI, 16.5%-36.6%; P = .038). The specificity of FIT in detecting CRC was similar between the proximal and distal colon. FIT detected distal lesions with higher PPV than proximal lesions. One FIT detected advanced neoplasia with 31.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 25.9%-38.4%) and 92.4% specificity (95% CI, 91.6%-93.2%), whereas 2 FITs detected advanced neoplasia with 34.1% sensitivity (95% CI, 28.0%-40.8%; P = .617) and 91.9% specificity (95% CI, 91.0%-92.7%; P = .327). FIT detected distal advanced neoplasia with greater sensitivity and higher PPV than proximal advanced neoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from subjects who underwent CRC screening in Hong Kong, FIT detected distal advanced neoplasia with higher sensitivity than proximal advanced neoplasia. Analysis of 1 vs 2 specimens by FIT identified advanced neoplasia with similar test characteristics.

Polyp morphology: an interobserver evaluation for the Paris classification among international experts

OBJECTIVES

The Paris classification is an international classification system for describing polyp morphology. Thus far, the validity and reproducibility of this classification have not been assessed. We aimed to determine the interobserver agreement for the Paris classification among seven Western expert endoscopists.

METHODS

A total of 85 short endoscopic video clips depicting polyps were created and assessed by seven expert endoscopists according to the Paris classification. After a digital training module, the same 85 polyps were assessed again. We calculated the interobserver agreement with a Fleiss kappa and as the proportion of pairwise agreement.

RESULTS

The interobserver agreement of the Paris classification among seven experts was moderate with a Fleiss kappa of 0.42 and a mean pairwise agreement of 67%. The proportion of lesions assessed as "flat" by the experts ranged between 13 and 40% (P<0.001). After the digital training, the interobserver agreement did not change (kappa 0.38, pairwise agreement 60%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to validate the Paris classification for polyp morphology. We demonstrated only a moderate interobserver agreement among international Western experts for this classification system. Our data suggest that, in its current version, the use of this classification system in daily practice is questionable and it is unsuitable for comparative endoscopic research. We therefore suggest introduction of a simplification of the classification system.

Yield of colonoscopy after recent CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis: a comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend routine follow-up colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis to confirm the diagnosis and exclude malignancy. Its value, however, has recently been questioned because of contradictory study results. Our objective was to compare the colonoscopic detection rate of advanced colonic neoplasia (ACN), comprising colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma (AA), in patients after a CT-proven primary episode of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis with average risk participants in a primary colonoscopy CRC screening program.

METHODS

A retrospective comparison was performed of prospectively collected data from cohorts derived from two multicenter randomized clinical trials executed in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2013. 401 uncomplicated diverticulitis patients and 1,426 CRC screening participants underwent colonic evaluation by colonoscopy. Main outcome was the diagnostic yield for ACN, calculated as number of diverticulitis patients and screening participants with ACN relative to their totals, with differences expressed as odds ratios (OR). The histopathology outcome of removed lesions during colonoscopy was used as definitive diagnosis.

RESULTS

AA detection was similar [5.5 vs. 8.7%; OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.38-1.01); P = 0.053]. CRC was detected in 1.2% (5/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 0.6% (9/1,426) of screening participants [OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.39-4.36); P = 0.673]. ACN was diagnosed in 6.7% (27/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 9.1% (130/1,426) of screening participants [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.45-1.11); P = 0.134]. ORs were adjusted for age, family history of CRC, smoking, BMI, and cecal intubation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

ACN detection does not differ significantly between patients with recent uncomplicated diverticulitis and average risk screening participants. Routine follow-up colonoscopy after primary CT-proven uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis can be omitted; these patients can participate in CRC screening programs. Follow-up colonoscopy may be beneficial when targeted at high-risk patients, but such an approach first needs prospective evaluation.

Modeling the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA)

Several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening models have been developed describing the progression of adenomas to CRC. Currently, there is increasing evidence that serrated lesions can also develop into CRC. It is not clear whether screening tests have the same test characteristics for serrated lesions as for adenomas, but lower sensitivities have been suggested. Models that ignore this type of colorectal lesions may provide overly optimistic predictions of the screen-induced reduction in CRC incidence. To address this issue, we have developed the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA) model that includes the adenoma-carcinoma pathway and the serrated pathway to CRC as well as characteristics of colorectal lesions. The model structure and the calibration procedure are described in detail. Calibration resulted in 19 parameter sets for the adenoma-carcinoma pathway and 13 for the serrated pathway that match the age- and sex-specific adenoma and serrated lesion prevalence in the COlonoscopy versus COlonography Screening (COCOS) trial, Dutch CRC incidence and mortality rates, and a number of other intermediate outcomes concerning characteristics of colorectal lesions. As an example, we simulated outcomes for a biennial fecal immunochemical test screening program and a hypothetical one-time colonoscopy screening program. Inclusion of the serrated pathway influenced the predicted effectiveness of screening when serrated lesions are associated with lower screening test sensitivity or when they are not removed. To our knowledge, this is the first model that explicitly includes the serrated pathway and characteristics of colorectal lesions. It is suitable for the evaluation of the (cost)effectiveness of potential screening strategies for CRC.

Combining risk factors with faecal immunochemical test outcome for selecting CRC screenees for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but has a less than perfect sensitivity. Combining risk stratification, based on established risk factors for advanced neoplasia, with the FIT result for allocating screenees to colonoscopy could increase the sensitivity and diagnostic yield of FIT-based screening. We explored the use of a risk prediction model in CRC screening.

DESIGN

We collected data in the colonoscopy arm of the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening study, a multicentre screening trial. For this study 6600 randomly selected, asymptomatic men and women between 50 years and 75 years of age were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Screening participants were asked for one sample FIT (OC-sensor) and to complete a risk questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Based on the questionnaire data and the FIT results, we developed a multivariable risk model with the following factors: total calcium intake, family history, age and FIT result. We evaluated goodness-of-fit, calibration and discrimination, and compared it with a model based on primary screening with FIT only.

RESULTS

Of the 1426 screening participants, 1112 (78%) completed the questionnaire and FIT. Of these, 101 (9.1%) had advanced neoplasia. The risk based model significantly increased the goodness-of-fit compared with a model based on FIT only (p<0.001). Discrimination improved significantly with the risk-based model (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: from 0.69 to 0.76, (p=0.02)). Calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow test; p=0.94). By offering colonoscopy to the 102 patients at highest risk, rather than to the 102 cases with a FIT result >50 ng/mL, 5 more cases of advanced neoplasia would be detected (net reclassification improvement 0.054, p=0.073).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding risk based stratification increases the accuracy FIT-based CRC screening and could be used in preselection for colonoscopy in CRC screening programmes.

Risk factors for false positive and for false negative test results in screening with fecal occult blood testing

Differences in the risk of a false negative or a false positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) across subgroups may affect optimal screening strategies. We evaluate whether subgroups are at increased risk of a false positive or a false negative FIT result, whether such variability in risk is related to differences in FIT sensitivity and specificity or to differences in prior CRC risk. Randomly selected, asymptomatic individuals were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Participants were asked to undergo one sample FIT and to complete a risk questionnaire. We identified patient characteristics associated with a false negative and false positive FIT results using logistic regression. We focused on statistically significant differences as well as on variables influencing the false positive or negative risk for which the odds ratio exceeded 1.25. Of the 1,426 screening participants, 1,112 (78%) completed FIT and the questionnaire; 101 (9.1%) had advanced neoplasia. 102 Individuals were FIT positive, 65 (64%) had a false negative FIT result and 66 (65%) a false positive FIT result. Participants at higher age and smokers had a significantly higher risk of a false negative FIT result. Males were at increased risk of a false positive result, so were smokers and regular NSAID users. FIT sensitivity was lower in females. Specificity was lower for males, smokers and regular NSAID users. FIT sensitivity was lower in women. FIT specificity was lower in males, smokers and regular NSAID users. Our results can be used for further evidence based individualization of screening strategies.

Informed decision-making in colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy or CT-colonography

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the level of informed decision making in a randomized controlled trial comparing colonoscopy and CT-colonography for colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

8844 citizens aged 50-75 were randomly invited to colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920) screening. All invitees received an information leaflet. Screenees received a questionnaire within 4 weeks before the planned examination, non-screenees 4 weeks after the invitation. A decision was categorized as informed when characterized by sufficient decision-relevant knowledge and consistent with personal attitudes toward participation in screening.

RESULTS

Knowledge and attitude items were completed by 1032/1276 colonoscopy screenees (81%), by 698/4648 colonoscopy non-screenees (15%), by 824/982 CT-colonography screenees (84%) and by 192/1938 CT-colonography non-screenees (10%). 1027 colonoscopy screenees (>99%) and 815 CT-colonography screenees (99%) had adequate knowledge; 915 (89%) and 742 (90%) had a positive attitude. 675 non-screenees invited to colonoscopy (97%) and 182 invited to CT-colonography (95%) had adequate knowledge; 344 (49%) and 94 (49%) expressed a negative attitude.

CONCLUSION

A large majority of screenees made an informed decision on participation. Almost half of responding non-screenees, made an uninformed decision, suggesting additional barriers to participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Efforts to understand the additional barriers will create opportunities to facilitate informed participation to colorectal cancer screening.

The feasibility of colorectal cancer detection using dual-energy computed tomography with iodine mapping

AIM

To assess the feasibility of colorectal cancer detection using dual-energy computed tomography with iodine mapping and without bowel preparation or bowel distension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients scheduled for preoperative staging computed tomography (CT) because of diagnosed or high suspicion for colorectal cancer were prospectively included in the study. A single contrast-enhanced abdominal CT acquisition using dual-source mode (100 kV/140 kV) was performed without bowel preparation. Weighted average 120 kV images and iodine maps were created with post-processing. Two observers performed a blinded read for colorectal lesions after being trained on three colorectal cancer patients. One observer performed an unblinded read for lesion detectability and placed a region of interest (ROI) within each lesion.

RESULTS

In total 21 patients were included and 18 had a colorectal cancer at the time of the CT acquisition. Median cancer size was 43 mm [interquartile range (IQR) 27-60 mm] and all 18 colorectal cancers were visible on the 120 kV images and iodine map during the unblinded read. During the blinded read, observers found 90% (27/30) of the cancers with 120 kV images only and 96.7% (29/30) after viewing the iodine map in addition (p = 0.5). Median enhancement of colorectal cancers was 29.9 HU (IQR 23.1-34.6). The largest benign lesions (70 and 25 mm) were visible on the 120 kV images and iodine map, whereas four smaller benign lesions (7-15 mm) were not.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal cancers are visible on the contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT without bowel preparation or insufflation. Because of the patient-friendly nature of this approach, further studies should explore its use for colorectal cancer detection in frail and elderly patients.

Differences in proximal serrated polyp detection among endoscopists are associated with variability in withdrawal time

BACKGROUND

Insufficient detection of proximal serrated polyps (PSP) might explain the occurrence of a proportion of interval carcinomas in colonoscopy surveillance programs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare PSP detection among endoscopists and to identify patient-related and endoscopist-related factors associated with PSP detection.

DESIGN

Prospective study in unselected patients.

SETTING

Colonoscopy screening program for colorectal cancer at two academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

Asymptomatic consecutive screening participants (aged 50-75 years).

INTERVENTION

Colonoscopies were performed by 5 experienced endoscopists. All detected polyps were removed. Multiple colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

We compared PSP detection among endoscopists by calculating odds ratios (OR) with logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression also was used to identify patient features and colonoscopy factors associated with PSP detection.

RESULTS

A total of 1354 patients underwent a complete screening colonoscopy: 1635 polyps were detected, of which 707 (43%) were adenomas and 685 (42%) were serrated polyps, including 215 PSPs. In 167 patients (12%) 1 or more PSPs were detected. The PSP detection rate differed significantly among endoscopists, ranging from 6% to 22% (P < .001). Longer withdrawal time (OR 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.16) was significantly associated with better PSP detection, whereas patient age, sex, and quality of bowel preparation were not.

LIMITATIONS

Limited number of highly experienced endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

The PSP detection rate differs among endoscopists. Longer withdrawal times are associated with better PSP detection, but patient features are not. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR1888.).

Colorectal cancer risk factors in the detection of advanced adenoma and colorectal cancer

Several risk factors for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been identified. If individuals with risk factors are more likely to harbor cancer or it precursors screening programs should be targeted toward this population. We evaluated the predictive value of colorectal cancer risk factors for the detection of advanced colorectal adenoma in a population based CRC colonoscopy screening program. Data were collected in a multicenter trial conducted in the Netherlands, in which 6600 asymptomatic men and women between 50 and 75 years were randomly selected from a population registry. They were invited to undergo a screening colonoscopy. Based on a review of the literature CRC risk factors were selected. Information on risk factors was obtained from screening attendees through a questionnaire. For each CRC risk factor, we estimated its odds ratio (OR) relative to the presence of advanced neoplasia as detected at colonoscopy. Of the 1426 screening participants who underwent a colonoscopy, 1236 (86%) completed the risk questionnaire. 110 participants (8.9%) had advanced neoplasia. The following risk factors were significantly associated with advanced neoplasia detected by colonoscopy: age (OR: 1.06 per year; 95% CI: 1.03-1.10), calcium intake (OR: 0.99 per mg; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00), positive CRC family history (OR: 1.55 per first degree family member; 95%CI: 1.11-2.16) and smoking (OR: 1.75; 95%CI: 1.09-2.82). Elderly screening participants, participants with lower calcium intake, a CRC family history, and smokers are at increased risk of harboring detectable advanced colorectal neoplasia at screening colonoscopy.

Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography

OBJECTIVES

We compared reported reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We randomly invited 8,844 people for screening by colonoscopy or CT colonography. On a questionnaire, invitees indicated reasons for participation or nonparticipation and indicated the most decisive reason.

RESULTS

The most frequently cited reasons to accept screening were early detection of precursor lesions and CRC, and contribution to science. The most frequently cited reasons to decline were the unpleasantness of the examination, the inconvenience of the preparation, a lack of symptoms, and "no time/too much effort." Among colonoscopy nonparticipants, elderly invitees cited inconvenience less often, and absence of symptoms more often, than did the group overall. The reason reported most frequently as the most decisive reason not to participate was the unpleasantness of the examination among colonoscopy nonparticipants, and "no time/too much effort" and lack of symptoms among CT colonography nonparticipants.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of these results, future screening programs could tailor the information provided to invitees.

Unit costs in population-based colorectal cancer screening using CT colonography performed in university hospitals in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Computed tomography (CT) colonography cost assumptions so far ranged from <euro>346 to <euro>594 per procedure, based on clinical CT reimbursement rates. The aim of our study was to estimate the costs in a screening situation.

METHODS

Data were collected within an invitational population-based CRC screening trial (n = 2,920, age 50-75 years) with a dedicated CT-screening setting. Unit costs were calculated per action, per invitee and per participant (depending on adherence) and per individual with detected advanced neoplasia. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and alternative scenarios were considered.

RESULTS

Of the invitees, 47.2 % were reminded, 38.8 % scheduled for an intake, 37.2 % scheduled for CT colonography, 33.6 % underwent CT colonography and 1.1 % needed a re-examination. Lesions ≥ 10 mm were detected in 2.9 % of the invitees. Invitation costs were Euro 5.57. Costs per CT colonography (intake to results) were Euro 144.00. Extra costs of communication of positive results were Euro 9.00. Average costs of invitational-based CT colonography screening were Euro 56.97 per invitee, Euro 169.40 per participant and Euro 2,772.51 per individual with detected advanced neoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch costs of CT-screening were substantially lower than the cost assumptions that were used in published cost-effectiveness analyses on CT colonography screening. This finding indicates that previous cost-effectiveness analyses should be updated, at least for the Dutch situation.

Immunochemical fecal occult blood testing is equally sensitive for proximal and distal advanced neoplasia

OBJECTIVE

Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to estimate its diagnostic accuracy in invitational population screening measured against colonoscopy.

METHODS

Participants (50-75 years) in an invitational primary colonoscopy screening program were asked to complete one sample FIT before colonoscopy. We estimated FIT sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values in detecting CRC and advanced neoplasia (carcinomas and advanced adenomas) for cutoff levels of 50 (FIT50), 75 (FIT75), and 100 (FIT100) ng hemoglobin (Hb)/ml, corresponding with, respectively, 10, 15 and 20 μg Hb/g feces.

RESULTS

A total of 1,256 participants underwent a FIT and screening colonoscopy. Advanced neoplasia was detected by colonoscopy in 119 (9%), 8 (0.6%) of them had CRC. At FIT50, 121 (10%) had a positive test result; 45 (37%) had advanced neoplasia and 7 (6%) had CRC. A total of 74 of 1,135 FIT50 negatives (7%) had advanced neoplasia including 1 (0.1%) CRC. FIT50 had a sensitivity of 38% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29-47) for advanced neoplasia and 88% (95% CI: 37-99) for CRC at a specificity of 93% (95% CI: 92-95) and 91% (95% CI: 89-92), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for FIT50 were 6% (95% CI: 3-12) and almost 100% (95% CI: 99-100) for CRC, and 37% (95% CI: 29-46) and 93% (95% CI: 92-95) for advanced neoplasia. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT75 for advanced neoplasia were 33% (95% CI: 25-42) and 96% (95% CI: 94-97). At FIT100, 71 screenees (6%) had a positive test result. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT100 were for advanced neoplasia 31% (95% CI: 23-40) and 97% (95% CI: 96-98), and for CRC 75% (95% CI: 36-96) and 95% (95% CI: 93-96). The area under curve for detecting advanced neoplasia was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64-0.76). FIT had a similar sensitivity for proximal and distal advanced neoplasia at cutoffs of 50 (38% vs. 37%; P=0.99), 75 (33% vs. 31%; P=0.85) and 100 (33% vs. 29%; P=0.68) ng Hb/ml.

DISCUSSION

Nine out of ten screening participants with CRC and four out of ten with advanced neoplasia will be detected using one single FIT at low cutoff. Sensitivity in detecting proximal and distal advanced neoplasia is comparable.

Randomized controlled trial evaluating participation and yield of colonoscopy versus CT colonography screening

Colorectal cancer is a common yet preventable condition. Population screening attempts suffer from a lack of widespread participation with the currently available options. Computerized tomography colonography (CTC) represents a promising addition to the screening armamentarium. CTC is less invasive than optical colonoscopy but has been shown to be equivalent to colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia, which represents the primary target of screening and prevention. Although CTC has generally been preferred over colonoscopy by patients in most published studies, little hard evidence exists regarding the level of increase in screening participation related to CTC. The landmark trial under discussion adds key data in terms of participation rates for CTC screening relative to colonoscopy screening.

Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial

Background:

A pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is necessary to assess a screenee’s general health status and to explain benefits and risks of screening. The first option allows for personal attention, whereas a telephone consultation does not require travelling. We hypothesised that a telephone consultation would lead to higher response and participation in CRC screening compared with a face-to-face consultation.

Methods:

A total of 6600 persons (50–75 years) were 1 : 1 randomised for primary colonoscopy screening with a pre-colonoscopy consultation either face-to-face or by telephone. In both arms, we counted the number of invitees who attended a pre-colonoscopy consultation (response) and the number of those who subsequently attended colonoscopy (participation), relative to the number invited for screening. A questionnaire regarding satisfaction with the consultation and expected burden of the colonoscopy (scored on five-point rating scales) was sent to invitees. Besides, a questionnaire to assess the perceived burden of colonoscopy was sent to participants, 14 days after the procedure.

Results:

In all, 3302 invitees were allocated to the telephone group and 3298 to the face-to-face group, of which 794 (24%) attended a telephone consultation and 822 (25%) a face-to-face consultation (P=0.41). Subsequently, 674 (20%) participants in the telephone group and 752 (23%) in the face-to-face group attended colonoscopy (P=0.018). Invitees and responders in the telephone group expected the bowel preparation to be more painful than those in the face-to-face group while perceived burden scores for the full screening procedure were comparable. More subjects in the face-to-face group than in the telephone group were satisfied by the consultation in general: (99.8% vs 98.5%, P=0.014).

Conclusion:

Using a telephone rather than a face-to-face consultation in a population-based CRC colonoscopy screening programme leads to similar response rates but significantly lower colonoscopy participation.

Comparing the diagnostic yields of technologists and radiologists in an invitational colorectal cancer screening program performed with CT colonography

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic yields of a radiologist and trained technologists in the detection of advanced neoplasia within a population-based computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical approval was obtained from the Dutch Health Council, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Nine hundred eighty-two participants (507 men, 475 women) underwent low-dose CT colonography after noncathartic bowel preparation (iodine tagging) between July 13, 2009, and January 21, 2011. Each scan was evaluated by one of three experienced radiologists (≥800 examinations) by using primary two-dimensional (2D) reading followed by secondary computer-aided detection (CAD) and by two of four trained technologists (≥200 examinations, with colonoscopic verification) by using primary 2D reading followed by three-dimensional analysis and CAD. Immediate colonoscopy was recommended for participants with lesions measuring at least 10 mm, and surveillance was recommended for participants with lesions measuring 6-9 mm. Consensus between technologists was achieved in case of discordant recommendations. Detection of advanced neoplasia (classified by a pathologist) was defined as a true-positive (TP) finding. Relative TP and false-positive (FP) fractions were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Overall, 96 of the 982 participants were referred for colonoscopy and 104 were scheduled for surveillance. Sixty of 84 participants (71%) referred for colonoscopy by the radiologist had advanced neoplasia, compared with 55 of 64 participants (86%) referred by two technologists. Both the radiologist and technologists detected all colorectal cancers (n = 5). The relative TP fraction (for technologists vs radiologist) for advanced neoplasia was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.07), and the relative FP fraction was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.67).

CONCLUSION

Two technologists serving as a primary reader of CT colonographic images can achieve a comparable sensitivity to that of a radiologist for the detection of advanced neoplasia, with far fewer FP referrals for colonoscopy.

Colon distension, perceived burden and side-effects of CT-colonography for screening using hyoscine butylbromide or glucagon hydrochloride as bowel relaxant

OBJECTIVE

Compare colonic distension and perceived burden of CT-colonography between participants receiving hyoscine butylbromide (buscopan) and glucagon hydrochloride as bowel relaxant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected within a screening trial. Participants received 20mg buscopan intravenously or 1mg of glucagon intravenously (if buscopan contra-indicated). Colon distension per segment was assessed using a 4-point scale (prone and supine). Data on perceived burden of CT-colonography were collected using a questionnaire two weeks after the examination. Outcome measures between groups were compared using propensity score matching. We used a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test statistic for quantitative and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics for categorical variables.

RESULTS

541 participants were included: 336 (62%) received buscopan and 205 received glucagon. All buscopan recipients had an adequately distended colon, compared to 96% in the glucagon group (RR 7.31, 95% CI: 1.61-33.28). More glucagon recipients scored the insufflation as rather or extremely burdensome (25% vs. 16%; overall mean score 2.7 vs. 2.4; p<0.001) and more found the entire CT-colonography rather or extremely burdensome (14% vs. 7%; 2.2 vs. 1.9; p=0.001). Most frequently reported side effects were a dry mouth in the buscopan group (15%) and nausea in the glucagon group (13%).

CONCLUSION

Compared to glucagon, premedication with buscopan results in significantly more adequately distended colons and a less burdensome procedure. When buscopan can be used, it is the preferred bowel relaxant.

Systematic review of sentinel lymph node mapping procedure in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of sentinel lymph node (SN) biopsy in colorectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of our study was to determine the accuracy of this procedure from published data and to identify factors that contribute to the conflicting reports.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to July 2011 revealed 98 potentially eligible studies, of which 57 were analyzed including 3,934 patients (3,944 specimens).

RESULTS

The pooled SN identification rate was 90.7% (95% CI 88.2-93.3), with a significant higher identification rate in studies including more than 100 patients or studies using the ex vivo SN technique. The pooled sensitivity of the SN procedure was 69.6% (95% CI 64.7-74.6). Including the immunohistochemical findings increased the pooled sensitivity of SN procedure to 80.2% (95% CI 4.7-10.7). Subgroups with significantly higher sensitivity could be identified: ≥4 SNs versus <4 SNs (85.2 vs. 66.3%, p = 0.003), colon versus rectal cancer (77.6 vs. 65.7%, p = 0.04), early T1 or T2 versus advanced T3 or T4 carcinomas (93.4 vs. 58.8%, p = 0.01). Serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry resulted in a mean upstaging of 18.9% (range 0-50%). True upstaging defined as micrometastases (pN1mi+) rather than isolated tumor cells (pN0itc+) was 7.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The SN procedure in colorectal cancer has an overall sensitivity of 70%, with increased sensitivity and refined staging in early-stage colon cancer. Because the ex vivo SN mapping is an easy technique it should be considered in addition to conventional resection in colon cancer.

Anticipating implementation of colorectal cancer screening in The Netherlands: a nation wide survey on endoscopic supply and demand

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening requires sufficient endoscopic resources. The present study aims to determine the Dutch endoscopic production and manpower for 2009, evaluate trends since 2004, determine additional workload which would be caused by implementation of a CRC screening program, and inventory colonoscopy rates performed in other European countries.

METHODS

All Dutch endoscopy units (N = 101) were surveyed for manpower and the numbers of endoscopy procedures performed in 2009. Based on calculations in the report issued by the Dutch Health Council, future additional workload caused by faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening was estimated. The number of colonoscopies performed in Europe was evaluated by a literature search and an email-inquiry.

RESULTS

Compared to 2004, there was a 24% increase in total endoscopies (N = 505,226 in 2009), and a 64% increase in colonoscopies (N = 191,339 in 2009) in The Netherlands. The number of endoscopists had increased by 4.6% (N = 583 in 2009). Five years after stepwise implementation of FIT-based CRC screening, endoscopic capacity needs to be increased an additional 15%. A lack of published data on the number of endoscopies performed in Europe was found. Based on our email-inquiry, the number of colonoscopies per 100,000 inhabitants ranged from 126 to 3,031 in 15 European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last years, endoscopic procedures increased markedly in The Netherlands without a corresponding increase in manpower. A FIT-based CRC screening program requires an estimated additional 15% increase in endoscopic procedures. It is very likely that current colonoscopy density varies widely across European countries.

Colon distension and scan protocol for CT-colonography: an overview

This article reviews two important aspects of CT-colonography, namely colonic distension and scan parameters. Adequate distension should be obtained to visualize the complete colonic lumen and optimal scan parameters should be used to prevent unnecessary radiation burden. For optimal distension, automatic carbon dioxide insufflation should be performed, preferably via a thin, flexible catheter. Hyoscine butylbromide is - when available - the preferred spasmolytic agent because of the positive effect on insufflation and pain/burden and its low costs. Scans in two positions are required for adequate distension and high polyp sensitivity and decubitus position may be used as an alternative for patients unable to lie in prone position. The great intrinsic contrast between air or tagging and polyps allows the use of low radiation dose. Low-dose protocol without intravenous contrast should be used when extracolonic findings are deemed unimportant. In patients suspected for colorectal cancer, normal abdominal CT scan protocols and intravenous contrast should be used in supine position for the evaluation of extracolonic findings. Dose reduction can be obtained by lowering the tube current and/or voltage. Tube current modulation reduces the radiation dose (except in obese patients), and should be used when available. Iterative reconstructions is a promising dose reducing tool and dual-energy CT is currently evaluated for its applications in CT-colonography. This review also provides our institution's insufflation procedure and scan parameters.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography

BACKGROUND

Although CT colonography is a less invasive alternative for colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer, procedural pain is common. In several studies, CT colonography pain and burden is higher than in colonoscopy. Apart from discomfort, anxiety and its related stress-induced peri- procedural side effects, this may influence the adherence for CT colonography as a possible screening tool for colorectal cancer. We hypothesize that a single bolus intravenous alfentanil will give a clinically relevant reduction in maximum pain defined as at least 1.3 point reduction on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS).

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in which patients scheduled for elective CT colonography in a single tertiary centre are eligible for inclusion. The first 90 consenting patient will be block-randomized to either the alfentanil group or the placebo group. Before bowel insufflation, the alfentanil group receives a single bolus intravenous alfentanil 7.5 μg/kg dissolved in 0.9% NaCl, while the placebo group receives an intravenous bolus injection of pure 0.9% NaCl. For both groups an equal amount of fluid per kilogram (75 μL/kg) is injected. The primary outcome is the difference in maximum pain on an 11-point NRS. Secondary outcomes include: pain and burden of different CT colonography aspects, side effects, procedural time and recovery time. For the primary outcome an independent samples t-test is performed and a P value<0.05 is considered statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence whether a single bolus intravenous alfentanil gives a clinically relevant reduction in maximum pain during CT colonography.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2902. This trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The department of radiology of the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam is responsible for the design and conduct of the trial.

Screening for colorectal cancer: possible improvements by risk assessment evaluation?

Emerging results indicate that screening improves survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Therefore, screening programs are already implemented or are being considered for implementation in Asia, Europe and North America. At present, a great variety of screening methods are available including colono- and sigmoidoscopy, CT- and MR-colonography, capsule endoscopy, DNA and occult blood in feces, and so on. The pros and cons of the various tests, including economic issues, are debated. Although a plethora of evaluated and validated tests even with high specificities and reasonable sensitivities are available, an international consensus on screening procedures is still not established. The rather limited compliance in present screening procedures is a significant drawback. Furthermore, some of the procedures are costly and, therefore, selection methods for these procedures are needed. Current research into improvements of screening for colorectal cancer includes blood-based biological markers, such as proteins, DNA and RNA in combination with various demographically and clinically parameters into a "risk assessment evaluation" (RAE) test. It is assumed that such a test may lead to higher acceptance among the screening populations, and thereby improve the compliances. Furthermore, the involvement of the media, including social media, may add even more individuals to the screening programs. Implementation of validated RAE and progressively improved screening methods may reform the cost/benefit of screening procedures for colorectal cancer. Therefore, results of present research, validating RAE tests, are awaited with interest.