15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials

Risk-stratified screening and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: A retrospective study from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether risk stratification can optimize the benefits of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) screening.

METHODS

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was conducted from 1993 to 2001 in the United States. A colorectal cancer (CRC) risk stratification tool was developed in the control arm (n = 64,207) from the PLCO cohort and validated in the UK Biobank (n = 270,726). PLCO participants (n = 130,021) were classified into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. Cumulative incidence and mortality were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between screening and CRC incidence and mortality.

RESULTS

The CRC risk stratification tool was based on age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, family history of CRC, diabetes, regular use of aspirin, and CRC screening history. Compared with the control arm, FSG screening was significantly associated with a reduction in mortality in both the medium-risk (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.63-0.92) and high-risk groups (0.58, 0.46-0.73), but not in the low-risk group (0.85, 0.61-1.19). FSG screening also reduced distal CRC incidence and mortality in the medium-risk and high-risk groups. Furthermore, it was associated with a reduction in incidence (0.74, 0.59-0.92) and mortality (0.59, 0.40-0.87) of proximal colon cancer in the high-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

FSG screening yielded more benefits for the high-risk group than for the low-risk and medium-risk groups, supporting the development of a risk-stratified CRC screening strategy.

Long-term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: 21-year follow-up of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Flexible sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, uncertainty exists about the duration of protection and differences by sex and age. We assessed effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 21 years' follow-up.

METHODS

The UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial is a multicentre randomised controlled trial that recruited men and women aged 55-64 years from general practices serving 14 hospitals. Among participants indicating that they would attend flexible sigmoidoscopy screening if invited, randomisation (2:1) to the control (no further contact) or intervention (invited to once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) group was performed centrally in blocks of 12, stratified by centre, general practice, and household type. Masking of intervention was infeasible. Primary outcomes were colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated cumulative incidence. Primary analyses estimated intention-to-treat hazard ratios (HRs) and risk differences, overall and stratified by subsite, sex, and age. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 28352761.

FINDINGS

Among participants recruited between Nov 14, 1994, and March 30, 1999, 170 432 were eligible and 113 195 were randomly assigned to the control group and 57 237 were randomly assigned to the intervention group. 406 participants were excluded from analyses (268 in the control group and 138 in the intervention group), leaving 112 927 participants in the control group (55 336 [49%] men and 57 591 [51%] women) and 57 099 in the intervention group (27 966 [49%] men and 29 103 [51%] women). Of participants who were invited to be screened, 40 624 (71%) attended screening. Median follow-up was 21·3 years (IQR 18·0-22·2). In the invited-to-screening group, colorectal cancer incidence was reduced compared with the control group (1631 vs 4201 cases; cumulative incidence at 21 years was 3·18% [95% CI 3·03 to 3·34] vs 4·16% [4·04 to 4·29]; HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·72 to 0·81]) with 47 fewer cases per 100 000 person-years (95% CI -56 to -37). Colorectal cancer mortality was also reduced in the invited-to-screening group compared with the control group (502 vs 1329 deaths; cumulative incidence at 21 years was 0·97% [0·88 to 1·06] vs 1·33% [1·26 to 1·40]; HR 0·75 [0·67 to 0·83]) with 16 fewer deaths per 100 000 person-years (-21 to -11). Effects were particularly evident in the distal colorectum (726 incident cancer cases in the invited-to-screening group vs 2434 cases in the control group; HR 0·59 [0·54 to 0·64]; 47 fewer cases per 100 000 person-years [-54 to -41]; 196 cancer deaths in the invited-to-screening group vs 708 deaths in the control group; HR 0·55 [0·47 to 0·64]; 15 fewer deaths per 100 000 person-years [-19 to -12]) and not the proximal colon (871 incident cancer cases in the invited-to-screening group vs 1749 cases in the control group; HR 0·98 [0·91 to 1·07]; one fewer case per 100 000 person-years [-8 to 5]; 277 cancer deaths in the invited-to-screening group vs 547 deaths in the control group; HR 1·00 [0·86 to 1·15]; zero fewer deaths per 100 000 person-years [-4 to 4]). The HR for colorectal cancer incidence was lower in men (0·70 [0·65-0·76]) than women (0·86 [0·79 to 0·93]; pinteraction=0·0007) but there was no difference by age.

INTERPRETATION

We show that once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality for two decades and provide important data to inform colorectal cancer screening guidelines.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and the Medical Research Council.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Screening of colorectal cancer: Methods and strategies

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has high incidence and mortality rates, and the emergence and application of CRC screening have helped us effectively control the occurrence and development of CRC. Currently, common international screening methods include tests based on feces and blood, and examination methods that allow for visualization, such as sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Some methods have been widely used, whereas others such as multi-target stool RNA test are still being explored and developed, and are expected to become front-line screening methods for CRC in the future. The choice of screening method is affected by external conditions and the patients' situation, and the clinician must choose an appropriate strategy according to the actual situation and the patient's wishes. This article introduces various CRC screening methods and analyzes the factors relevant to the screening strategy.

Unveiling Colorectal Cancer Biomarkers: Harnessing Biosensor Technology for Volatile Organic Compound Detection

Conventional screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection are mainly direct visualization and invasive methods including colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, which must be performed in a clinical setting and may be linked to adverse effects for some patients. Non-invasive CRC diagnostic tests such as computed tomography colonography and stool tests are either too costly or less reliable than invasive ones. On the other hand, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are potentially ideal non-invasive biomarkers for CRC detection and monitoring. The present review is a comprehensive presentation of the current state-of-the-art VOC-based CRC diagnostics, with a specific focus on recent advancements in biosensor design and application. Among them, breath-based chromatography pattern analysis and sampling techniques are overviewed, along with nanoparticle-based optical and electrochemical biosensor approaches. Limitations of the currently available technologies are also discussed with an outlook for improvement in combination with big data analytics and advanced instrumentation, as well as expanding the scope and specificity of CRC-related volatile biomarkers.

The underestimated preventive effects of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: re-analysis and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is less invasive, resource intensive and costly than colonoscopy, is among the recommended screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC). Four large randomized trials consistently reported statistically significant, albeit modest effects of screening by FS on CRC incidence. However, their effect estimates included cancers that were already prevalent at recruitment and could not have been prevented by screening. We performed a re-analysis and meta-analysis of two of the trials (including the largest one) to estimate reduction of truly incident cases by a single FS offered between 55 and 64 years of age among the "at risk study population" without prevalent CRC at recruitment. In meta-analyses of data reported after more than 15 years of follow-up, relative risk (95% CI) in intention-to-screen and per-protocol analyses were 0.71 (0.66-0.76) and 0.59 (0.55-0.65) for any CRC, and 0.52 (0.47-0.57) and 0.34 (0.30-0.39) for distal CRC, respectively. These results indicate much stronger effects than those suggested by the original reports and imply that a single screening FS can prevent approximately two out of three distal incident CRC cases within 15 + years of follow-up.

Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prevention

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. There are disparities in the epidemiology of CRC across different populations, most probably due to differences in exposure to lifestyle and environmental factors related to CRC. Prevention is the most effective method for controlling CRC. Primary prevention includes determining and avoiding modifiable risk factors (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, and dietary factors) as well as increasing protective factors (e.g., physical activity, aspirin). Further studies, especially randomized, controlled trials, are needed to clarify the association between CRC incidence and exposure to different risk factors or protective factors. Detection and removal of precancerous colorectal lesions is also an effective strategy for controlling CRC. Multiple factors, both at the individual and community levels (e.g., patient preferences, availability of screening modalities, costs, benefits, and adverse events), should be taken into account in designing and implementing CRC screening programs. Health policymakers should consider the best decision in identifying the starting age and selection of the most effective screening strategies for the target population. This review aims to present updated evidence on the epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of CRC.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death. Screening has been proven to reduce both cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality. Various screening tests are available, each with their own advantages and disadvantages and varying levels of evidence to support their use. Clinicians should offer CRC screening to average-risk persons aged 50 to 75 years; starting screening at age 45 years remains controversial. Screening may be beneficial in select persons aged 76 to 85 years, based on their overall health and screening history. Offering a choice of screening tests or sequentially offering an alternate test for those who do not complete screening can significantly increase participation.

Next-Generation Multitarget Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

A next-generation multitarget stool DNA test, including assessments of DNA molecular markers and hemoglobin level, was developed to improve the performance of colorectal cancer screening, primarily with regard to specificity.

METHODS

In a prospective study, we evaluated a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test in asymptomatic adults 40 years of age or older who were undergoing screening colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were sensitivity of the test for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions). Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. Secondary objectives included the quantification of sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy and comparison of sensitivities for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions between the multitarget stool DNA test and a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

RESULTS

Of 20,176 participants, 98 had colorectal cancer, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy. With the next-generation test, sensitivity for colorectal cancer was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1 to 97.7), and specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1 to 91.0). Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3 to 45.6), and specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2 to 93.1). With the FIT, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1 to 76.5) for colorectal cancer and 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5 to 25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions; specificity was 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4 to 95.1) for advanced neoplasia and 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3 to 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy. As compared with FIT, the next-generation test had superior sensitivity for colorectal cancer (P<0.001) and for advanced precancerous lesions (P<0.001) but had lower specificity for advanced neoplasia (P<0.001). No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The next-generation multitarget stool DNA test showed higher sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions than FIT but also showed lower specificity. (Funded by Exact Sciences; BLUE-C ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04144738.).

Contributions of early detection and cancer prevention to colorectal cancer mortality reduction by screening colonoscopy: a validated modeling study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Screening colonoscopy, recommended every 10 years, reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) by early detection of prevalent but undiagnosed CRC, as well as by removal of precursor lesions. The aim of this study was to assess the relative contribution of both components to total CRC mortality reduction over time.

METHODS

Using a validated multistate Markov model, we simulated hypothetical cohorts of 100,000 individuals aged 55 to 64 years with and without screening at baseline. Main outcomes included proportions of prevented CRC deaths arising from (asymptomatic) CRC already present at baseline and from newly developed CRC during 15 years of follow-up, and mortality rate ratios of screened versus nonscreened groups over time.

RESULTS

Early detection of prevalent cases accounted for 52%, 30%, and 18% of deaths prevented by screening colonoscopy within 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Relative reduction of mortality was estimated to be much larger for mortality from incident cancers than for mortality from cancers that were already present and detected early at screening endoscopy and for total CRC mortality (ie, 88% versus 67% and 79%, respectively, within 10 years from screening).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction of CRC mortality mainly arises from early detection of prevalent cancers during the early years after screening colonoscopy, but prevention of incident cases accounts for the majority of prevented deaths in the longer run. Prevention of incident cases leads to sustained strong reduction of CRC mortality, possibly warranting an extension of screening intervals.

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.

Objective

To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.

Intervention

Invitation to endoscopic screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.

Results

This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Instrumental variables methods reconcile intention-to-screen effects across pragmatic cancer screening trials

Pragmatic cancer screening trials mimic real-world scenarios in which patients and doctors are the ultimate arbiters of treatment. Intention-to-screen (ITS) analyses of such trials maintain randomization-based apples-to-apples comparisons, but differential adherence (the failure of subjects assigned to screening to get screened) makes ITS effects hard to compare across trials and sites. We show how instrumental variables (IV) methods address the nonadherence challenge in a comparison of estimates from 17 sites in five randomized trials measuring screening effects on colorectal cancer incidence. While adherence rates and ITS estimates vary widely across and within trials, IV estimates of per-protocol screening effects are remarkably consistent. An application of simple IV tools, including graphical analysis and formal statistical tests, shows how differential adherence explains variation in ITS impact. Screening compliers are also shown to have demographic characteristics similar to those of the full trial study sample. These findings argue for the clinical relevance of IV estimates of cancer screening effects.

Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.

Objective

To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.

Data Sources

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.

Study Selection

Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.

Results

In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

METHODS

This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Breaking Down Barriers to Detection and Care in Early-Age-Onset Colorectal Cancer in Canada

The second Early-Age-Onset Colorectal Cancer Symposium, convened in October 2022, sought solutions to the barriers to early detection and care for colorectal cancer in Canada. This meeting built on a previous symposium, held in 2021 and reported in this journal. Early-age-onset colorectal cancer (EAOCRC) affects increasing numbers of people under the age of 50 in Canada and throughout the developed world. Two main themes emerged from the meeting: the importance of timely detection, and the need for a tailored approach to the care of EAOCRC. Early detection is crucial, especially in light of the later stage at diagnosis and unique tumour characteristics. Symposium participants were strongly in favour of reducing the age of eligibility for screening from 50 to 45, and promoting the development of non-invasive screening techniques such as testing for circulating tumour DNA and biomarkers. Leading approaches to care were described and discussed, which meet the unique treatment needs of younger CRC patients. Multidisciplinary practices within and outside Canada address such factors as fertility, family roles, education, careers and financial responsibilities. These models can be applied in treatment centres across the country.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles

OBJECTIVE

New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers.

DESIGN

A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles.

RESULTS

Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence.

CONCLUSION

New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Role of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: Available evidence

Colonoscopy is the cornerstone examination for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and it is recommended as the first examination in the context of individuals with high risk of CRC development. Thereby, this examination is of choice in the setting of patients with hereditary CRC syndromes or in patients with long-standing inflammatory bowel disease with colon involvement. However, its role is less clear in the average risk-risk population and in patients with family history of CRC not linked to hereditary CRC syndromes. Despite this, current guidelines, include colonoscopy as alternative for CRC screening either in average risk population with the same evidence level that other screening strategies or in the familial risk population. The present manuscript reviews the clinical evidence on the role of colonoscopy in preventing CRC in different screening settings.

When gold standards are not so golden: prevalence bias in randomized trials on endoscopic colorectal cancer screening

Randomized trials on the effectiveness of screening endoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk have reported statistically significant, but rather modest reduction of CRC risk by the screening offer. However, risk estimates in these trials included substantial proportions of prevalent CRC cases which were early detected, but could not possibly have been prevented by screening. Thereby, a key principle of randomized prevention trials is violated that only "at risk" persons who do not yet have the disease one aims to prevent should be included in measures of preventive effects. Using recently published data from the Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial as an example, we illustrate that approaches aimed to account for "prevalence bias" lead to effect estimates that are substantially larger than those reported in the trial and more in line with results from observational studies and real life settings. More rigorous methodological work is needed to develop effective and user-friendly tools to prevent or adjust for prevalence bias in future screening studies.

Association of Life Expectancy With Surveillance Colonoscopy Findings and Follow-up Recommendations in Older Adults

Importance

Surveillance after prior colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy in older adults. However, to our knowledge, the current use of surveillance colonoscopy, clinical outcomes, and follow-up recommendations in association with life expectancy, factoring in both age and comorbidities, have not been studied.

Objective

To evaluate the association of estimated life expectancy with surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up recommendations among older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This registry-based cohort study used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) linked with Medicare claims data and included adults in the NHCR who were older than 65 years, underwent colonoscopy for surveillance after prior polyps between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, and had full Medicare Parts A and B coverage and no Medicare managed care plan enrollment in the year prior to colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to March 2021.

Exposures

Life expectancy (<5 years, 5 to <10 years, or ≥10 years), estimated using a validated prediction model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were clinical findings of colon polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) and recommendations for future colonoscopy.

Results

Among 9831 adults included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 73.2 (5.0) years and 5285 (53.8%) were male. A total of 5649 patients (57.5%) had an estimated life expectancy of 10 or more years, 3443 (35.0%) of 5 to less than 10 years, and 739 (7.5%) of less than 5 years. Overall, 791 patients (8.0%) had advanced polyps (768 [7.8%]) or CRC (23 [0.2%]). Among the 5281 patients with available recommendations (53.7%), 4588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy. Those with longer life expectancy or more advanced clinical findings were more likely to be told to return. For example, among patients with no polyps or only small hyperplastic polyps, 132 of 227 (58.1%) with life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return for future surveillance colonoscopy vs 940 of 1257 (74.8%) with life expectancy of 5 to less than 10 years and 2163 of 2272 (95.2%) with life expectancy of 10 years or more (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps and CRC on surveillance colonoscopy was low regardless of life expectancy. Despite this observation, 58.1% of older adults with less than 5 years' life expectancy were recommended to return for future surveillance colonoscopy. These data may help refine decision-making about pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of polyps.