Colonoscopy findings in high-risk individuals compared to an average-risk control population

Trend of the polyp and adenoma detection rate by sex and age in asymptomatic average-risk and high-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, 2012-2019

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an imperative quality measure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This retrospective observational study aimed to determine the trend of polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR in asymptomatic average- and high-risk participants in different age groups who underwent screening colonoscopy over the seven years from April 2012 to March 2019 in a tertiary gastroenterology referral center of Iran. Of 1676 participants, 51.8 % were men (mean age 52.3 years). The overall PDR and ADR were 22.7 %, and 13.5 %, respectively. Both Polyps and adenomas were more common in age groups 51-59 and ≥60 years in high-risk patients than in the corresponding groups of average-risk patients (p < 0.05). Also, both PDR and ADR were more frequent in men than in women among all studied age groups, but it was statistically significant only for the youngest age group (16.8 % versus 10.5 %, p < 0.05) for PDR and the oldest age group (19.7 % versus 13 %, p < 0.05) for ADR, respectively. The trend of total ADR was upward over 7 years in both average-risk (6.7 % to 13.3 %) and high-risk (9.8 % to 27 %) groups and across all age groups in both sexes. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that high-risk individuals had an elevated risk of adenoma compared with average-risk patients (OR: 1.6, p = 0.006). Substantial variation in thresholds of polyp and adenoma detection by age, sex, and risk categories emphasizes the need for a risk-adapted approach to CRC screening and prevention programs.

Disparate cell proliferation and p53 overexpression in colonic crypts with normal epithelial lining found below the neoplastic canopy of conventional adenomas

We previously found colonic crypts with normal epithelial lining but with corrupted shapes (NECS) beneath the adenomatous tissue of conventional adenomas (CoAs). Here we assessed the distribution of proliferating cells (PCs) and explored the possible occurrence of p53‐upregulated cells in the NECS in a cohort of CoAs. Sections from 70 CoAs and from 12 normal colon segments were immunostained with the proliferation marker Ki67. In 60 of the 70 CoAs, additional sections were immunostained for the tumor suppressor p53 protein. NECS with asymmetric, haphazardly distributed single PC or PC clusters were recorded in 80% of the CoAs, with a continuous PC domain in one or both slopes of the crypts in 17%, and with haphazardly distributed single PCs in the remaining 3% of the CoAs. In the 12 normal segments (controls), the colon crypts demonstrated normal shapes with symmetric PC domains limited to the lower third portion of the crypts. In 30% of the 60 CoAs immunostained with p53 the NECS revealed haphazardly distributed p53‐upregulated cells, singly or in clusters. In sum, the apparently normal epithelium of the NECS beneath the adenomatous tissue of CoAs revealed an unprecedented relocation of the normal PC domains. This unexpected event and the occurrence of p53‐upregulated cells strongly suggest that the crypts beneath the neoplastic tissue of CoAs harbor somatic mutations. The accretion of putative mutated NECS beneath the neoplastic canopy of CoA emerges as a previously unaddressed major event, an event that might play an important role in the histogenesis of CoA in the human colon.

Lack of association between screening interval and cancer stage in Lynch syndrome may be accounted for by over-diagnosis; a prospective Lynch syndrome database report

Background

Recent epidemiological evidence shows that colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to occur in carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair (path_MMR) variants despite frequent colonoscopy surveillance in expert centres. This observation conflicts with the paradigm that removal of all visible polyps should prevent the vast majority of CRC in path_MMR carriers, provided the screening interval is sufficiently short and colonoscopic practice is optimal.

Methods

To inform the debate, we examined, in the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD), whether the time since last colonoscopy was associated with the pathological stage at which CRC was diagnosed during prospective surveillance. Path_MMR carriers were recruited for prospective surveillance by colonoscopy. Only variants scored by the InSiGHT Variant Interpretation Committee as class 4 and 5 (clinically actionable) were included. CRCs detected at the first planned colonoscopy, or within one year of this, were excluded as prevalent cancers.

Results

Stage at diagnosis and interval between last prospective surveillance colonoscopy and diagnosis were available for 209 patients with 218 CRCs, including 162 path_MLH1, 45 path_MSH2, 10 path_MSH6 and 1 path_PMS2 carriers. The numbers of cancers detected within < 1.5, 1.5–2.5, 2.5–3.5 and at > 3.5 years since last colonoscopy were 36, 93, 56 and 33, respectively. Among these, 16.7, 19.4, 9.9 and 15.1% were stage III–IV, respectively (p = 0.34). The cancers detected more than 2.5 years after the last colonoscopy were not more advanced than those diagnosed earlier (p = 0.14).

Conclusions

The CRC stage and interval since last colonoscopy were not correlated, which is in conflict with the accelerated adenoma-carcinoma paradigm. We have previously reported that more frequent colonoscopy is not associated with lower incidence of CRC in path_MMR carriers as was expected. In contrast, point estimates showed a higher incidence with shorter intervals between examinations, a situation that may parallel to over-diagnosis in breast cancer screening. Our findings raise the possibility that some CRCs in path_MMR carriers may spontaneously disappear: the host immune response may not only remove CRC precursor lesions in path_MMR carriers, but may remove infiltrating cancers as well. If confirmed, our suggested interpretation will have a bearing on surveillance policy for path_MMR carriers.

Colorectal cancer incidence in path_MLH1 carriers subjected to different follow-up protocols: a Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database report

Background

We have previously reported a high incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in carriers of pathogenic MLH1 variants (path_MLH1) despite follow-up with colonoscopy including polypectomy.

Methods

The cohort included Finnish carriers enrolled in 3-yearly colonoscopy (n = 505; 4625 observation years) and carriers from other countries enrolled in colonoscopy 2-yearly or more frequently (n = 439; 3299 observation years). We examined whether the longer interval between colonoscopies in Finland could explain the high incidence of CRC and whether disease expression correlated with differences in population CRC incidence.

Results

Cumulative CRC incidences in carriers of path_MLH1 at 70-years of age were 41% for males and 36% for females in the Finnish series and 58% and 55% in the non-Finnish series, respectively (p > 0.05). Mean time from last colonoscopy to CRC was 32.7 months in the Finnish compared to 31.0 months in the non-Finnish (p > 0.05) and was therefore unaffected by the recommended colonoscopy interval. Differences in population incidence of CRC could not explain the lower point estimates for CRC in the Finnish series. Ten-year overall survival after CRC was similar for the Finnish and non-Finnish series (88% and 91%, respectively; p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The hypothesis that the high incidence of CRC in path_MLH1 carriers was caused by a higher incidence in the Finnish series was not valid. We discuss whether the results were influenced by methodological shortcomings in our study or whether the assumption that a shorter interval between colonoscopies leads to a lower CRC incidence may be wrong. This second possibility is intriguing, because it suggests the dogma that CRC in path_MLH1 carriers develops from polyps that can be detected at colonoscopy and removed to prevent CRC may be erroneous. In view of the excellent 10-year overall survival in the Finnish and non-Finnish series we remain strong advocates of current surveillance practices for those with LS pending studies that will inform new recommendations on the best surveillance interval.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13053-017-0078-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.