How Would You Screen This Patient for Colorectal Cancer? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death for men and women in the United States, with an estimated 52 580 people expected to die in 2022. Most frequently, CRC is diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. However, among persons younger than 50 years, incidence rates have been increasing since the mid-1990s. In 2021, partially because of the rising incidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screening for adults aged 45 to 49 years (Grade B recommendation). Options for CRC screening include stool-based and direct visualization tests. The USPSTF did not recommend a specific screening test; rather, its guidance was to select a test after a discussion with the patient. Here, a primary care physician and a gastroenterologist discuss the recommendation to begin CRC screening at age 45, review options for CRC screening, and discuss how to choose among the available options.

Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

Reevaluating the Evidence for Intensive Postoperative Extracolonic Surveillance for Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The FACS, GILDA, and COLOFOL trials have cast doubt on the value of intensive extracolonic surveillance for resected nonmetastatic colorectal cancer and by extension metastasectomy. We reexamined this pessimistic interpretation. We evaluate an alternative explanation: insufficient power to detect a realistically sized survival benefit that may be clinically meaningful. METHODS: A microsimulation model of postdiagnosis colorectal cancer was constructed assuming an empirically plausible efficacy for metastasectomy and thus surveillance. The model was used to predict the large-sample mortality reduction expected for each trial and the implied statistical power. A potential recurrence imbalance in the FACS trial was investigated. Goodness of fit between model predictions and trial results were evaluated. Downstream life expectancy was estimated and power calculations performed for future trials evaluating surveillance and metastasectomy. RESULTS: For all 3 trials, the model predicted a mortality reduction of ≤5% and power of <10%. The FACS recurrence imbalance likely led to a large relative bias (>2.5) in the hazard ratio for overall survival favoring control. After adjustment, both COLOFOL and FACS results were consistent with model predictions (P>.5). A 2.6 (95% credible interval 0.5-5.1) and 3.6 (95% credible interval 0.8-7.0) month increase in life expectancy is predicted comparing intensive extracolonic surveillance-routine computed tomography scans and carcinoembryonic antigen assays-with 1 computed tomography scan at 12 months or no surveillance, respectively. An adequately sized surveillance trial is not feasible. A metastasectomy trial should randomize at least 200 to 300 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recent trial results do not warrant de novo skepticism of metastasectomy nor targeted extracolonic surveillance. Given the potential for clinically meaningful life-expectancy gain and significant uncertainty, a trial of metastasectomy is needed.

Computed Tomography Colonography vs Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance After Surgery.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recommendations for surveillance after curative surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) include a 1-year post-resection abdominal-pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan and optical colonoscopy (OC). CT colonography (CTC), when used in CRC screening, effectively identifies colorectal polyps ≥10 mm and cancers. We performed a prospective study to determine whether CTC, concurrent with CT, could substitute for OC in CRC surveillance. METHODS: Our study enrolled 231 patients with resected stage 0-III CRC, identified at 5 tertiary care academic centers. Approximately 1 year after surgery, participants underwent outpatient CTC plus CT, followed by same-day OC. CTC results were revealed after endoscopic visualization of sequential colonic segments, which were re-examined for discordant findings. The primary outcome was performance of CTC in the detection of colorectal adenomas and cancers using endoscopy as the reference standard. RESULTS: Of the 231 participants, 116 (50.2%) had polyps of any size or histology identified by OC, and 15.6% had conventional adenomas and/or serrated polyps ≥6 mm. No intra-luminal cancers were detected. CTC detected patients with polyps of ≥6 mm with 44.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 30.2-57.8) and 93.4% specificity (95% CI, 89.7-97.0). CTC detected polyps ≥10 mm with 76.9% sensitivity (95% CI, 54.0-99.8) and 89.0% specificity (95% CI, 84.8-93.1). Similar values were found when only adenomatous polyps were considered. The negative predictive value of CTC for adenomas ≥6 mm was 90.7% (95% CI, 86.7-94.5) and for adenomas ≥10 mm the negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI, 97.0-100). CONCLUSIONS: In a CRC surveillance population 1 year following resection, CTC was inferior to OC for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm. Clinical Trials.gov Registration Number: NCT02143115.

Post-operative colorectal cancer surveillance: preference for optical colonoscopy over computerized tomographic colonography.

PURPOSE: Post-operative surveillance strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) include periodic optical colonoscopy (OC) and abdominal-pelvic CT scan. Adherence with these recommendations is limited. For CRC screening, CT colonography (CTC) identifies larger adenomas and cancers nearly as well as OC. Most screening studies demonstrate that patients prefer CTC. However, CTC has never been compared to OC in the post-operative surveillance setting. METHODS: We hypothesized that CTC might represent an attractive substitute for the standard OC/CT scan combination. Here, 223 patients underwent CTC followed by same day OC 1 year after curative CRC resection. RESULTS: Of the 144/223 (64.6%) participants with a preference, 65.9% (95/144) preferred OC. This preference was more pronounced in women and in patients with polyps detected. No additional patient level factors significantly altered this primary result. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to CRC screening, this first study in CRC post-operative surveillance patients demonstrates a preference for OC. Assuming patient preference is an important determinant, introduction of CTC as a method to increase patient adherence with CRC surveillance is unlikely to be effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT02143115.

Prospective Trial Evaluating the Surgical Anastomosis at One-Year Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy and Implications for Patient Care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of CT colonography versus optical colonoscopy for neoplastic involvement at the surgical anastomosis 1 year after curative-intent colorectal cancer resection. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Two hundred one patients (mean age, 58.6 years; 117 men, 84 women) underwent same-day contrast-enhanced CT colonography and colonoscopy approximately 1 year (mean, 12.1 months; median, 11.9 months) after colorectal cancer resection as part of a prospective, multicenter trial. All patients enrolled were without clinical evidence of disease and considered low risk for recurrence (stage I-III). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Suspected neoplastic lesions within 5 cm of the colonic anastomosis were recorded at CT colonography, with subsequent colonoscopy performed for the same, with segmental unblinding of colonography findings. Anastomotic region biopsy or polypectomy was performed at the endoscopist's discretion. RESULTS: None of the 201 patients had intraluminal anastomotic cancer recurrence or advanced neoplasia (or metachronous cancers). CT colonography detected extramural perianastomotic recurrence in 2 patients (1.0%); neither was detected at colonoscopy. Only 2 patients (1.0%; 2/201) were called positive at CT colonography for intraluminal anastomotic nondiminutive lesions (7- to 8-mm polyps), which were confirmed at colonoscopy but nonneoplastic at histopathology. At optical colonoscopy, the anastomosis was deemed abnormal and/or biopsied in 10.0% (20/201), yielding only 1 nondiminutive benign neoplasm (7-mm tubular adenoma). LIMITATIONS: The lack of luminal cancer recurrence in our lower-risk cohort precludes assessment of sensitivity for detection, rendering the study underpowered in this regard. Potential cost savings of combined CT/CT colonography over the standard CT/colonoscopy approach were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Relevant intraluminal anastomotic pathology appears to be very uncommon 1 year after colorectal cancer resection in lower-risk cohorts. Unlike colonoscopy, diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT colonography effectively evaluates both the intra- and extraluminal aspects of the anastomosis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A471.

Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer death in men and women in the United States. The main goals of screening are to prevent carcinogenesis (via adenoma detection and removal) and detect cancer at an early, curable stage. CRC mortality is steadily dropping in the United States, partly because of greater screening utilization. However, nearly 1 in 3 average-risk people are not up to date with standard CRC screening recommendations. This review surveys a wide range of CRC biomarkers in various stages of development, which may offer attractive risk stratification tools; a few have reached the commercial stage. If widely accepted, these tools may contribute to shift CRC screening practices away from 1-step colonoscopy to a 2-step risk stratification process of predictive biomarker measurements followed by colonoscopy for lower-risk patients with a positive result. Such strategies could potentially increase the rate of CRC screening.

BOB CAT: A Large-Scale Review and Delphi Consensus for Management of Barrett's Esophagus With No Dysplasia, Indefinite for, or Low-Grade Dysplasia.

OBJECTIVES: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common premalignant lesion for which surveillance is recommended. This strategy is limited by considerable variations in clinical practice. We conducted an international, multidisciplinary, systematic search and evidence-based review of BE and provided consensus recommendations for clinical use in patients with nondysplastic, indefinite, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD). METHODS: We defined the scope, proposed statements, and searched electronic databases, yielding 20,558 publications that were screened, selected online, and formed the evidence base. We used a Delphi consensus process, with an 80% agreement threshold, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to categorize the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: In total, 80% of respondents agreed with 55 of 127 statements in the final voting rounds. Population endoscopic screening is not recommended and screening should target only very high-risk cases of males aged over 60 years with chronic uncontrolled reflux. A new international definition of BE was agreed upon. For any degree of dysplasia, at least two specialist gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists are required. Risk factors for cancer include male gender, length of BE, and central obesity. Endoscopic resection should be used for visible, nodular areas. Surveillance is not recommended for <5 years of life expectancy. Management strategies for indefinite dysplasia (IND) and LGD were identified, including a de-escalation strategy for lower-risk patients and escalation to intervention with follow-up for higher-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this uniquely large consensus process in gastroenterology, we made key clinical recommendations for the escalation/de-escalation of BE in clinical practice. We made strong recommendations for the prioritization of future research.

Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Little is known about the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) feedback on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In a recently completed randomized trial, primary care patients received GERA feedback based on a blood test for genetic polymorphisms and serum folate level (GERA Group) versus usual care (Control Group). Subsequently, participants were offered CRC screening. Among participants who received GERA feedback, being at elevated risk was negatively associated with prospective CRC screening adherence. Secondary analyses of data from this study were performed to identify independent predictors of adherence among participants who received GERA feedback. We obtained baseline survey, follow-up survey, and endpoint medical records data on sociodemographic background, knowledge, psychosocial characteristics, risk status, and adherence for 285 GERA Group participants. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of CRC screening adherence. Following a 6-month outcomes observation period, we also conducted two focus groups with GERA Group participants to assess their perceptions of GERA risk feedback and screening. Content analyses of focus group data were evaluated to gain insights into participant response to risk feedback. Overall, half of GERA Group participants adhered to screening within 6 months after randomization. Multivariable analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between race and GERA feedback status relative to screening adherence (p = 0.043). Among participants who received average risk feedback, adherence was comparable among whites (49.7 %) and nonwhites (54.1 %); however, among those at elevated risk, adherence was substantially higher among whites (66.7 %) compared to nonwhites (33.3 %). Focus group findings suggest that whites were more likely than nonwhites to view elevated risk feedback as a prompt to screen. In response to receiving elevated risk feedback, nonwhites were more likely than whites to report feeling anxiety about the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC. Further research is needed to explore race-related CRC screening differences in response to GERA feedback.

Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: New methods are needed to improve health behaviors, such as adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Personalized genetic information to guide medical decisions is increasingly available. Whether such information motivates behavioral change is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether individualized genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) of CRC susceptibility improves adherence to screening in average-risk persons. DESIGN: 2-group, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0087360). SETTING: 4 medical school-affiliated primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: 783 participants at average risk for CRC who were not adherent to screening at study entry. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or GERA, which evaluated methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and serum folate levels. On the basis of prespecified combinations of polymorphisms and serum folate levels, GERA recipients were told that they were at elevated or average risk for CRC. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was CRC screening within 6 months of study entry. RESULTS: Overall screening rates for CRC did not statistically significant differ between the usual care (35.7%) and GERA (33.1%) groups. After adjustment for baseline participant factors, the odds ratio for screening completion for GERA versus usual care was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22). Within the GERA group, screening rates did not significantly differ between average-risk (38.1%) and elevated-risk (26.9%) participants. Odds ratios for elevated- versus average-risk participants remained nonsignificant after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.39 to 1.42]). LIMITATION: Only 1 personalized genetic and environmental interaction and 1 health behavior (CRC screening) were assessed. CONCLUSION: In average-risk persons, CRC screening uptake was not positively associated with feedback from a single personalized GERA. Additional studies will be required to evaluate whether other approaches to providing GERA affect screening utilization differently. These findings raise concern about the effectiveness of moderately predictive assessment of genetic risk to promote favorable health care behavior. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

A combination of esomeprazole and aspirin reduces tissue concentrations of prostaglandin E(2) in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND& AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs might prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE), but there are limited data from clinical trials to support this concept. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial to assess the effects of the combination of aspirin (3 different doses) and esomeprazole on tissue concentrations of prostaglandin (PG) E(2) in patients with BE with no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia. METHODS: Participants were recruited through the multicenter Cancer Prevention Network and randomly assigned to groups that were given 40 mg esomeprazole twice daily in combination with an aspirin placebo once daily (arm A; n = 30), with 81 mg aspirin once daily (arm B; n = 47), or with 325 mg aspirin once daily (arm C; n = 45) for 28 days. We collected esophageal biopsy specimens before and after the intervention period to determine the absolute change in mean concentration of PGE(2) (the primary end point). RESULTS: Based on data from 114 patients, baseline characteristics were similar among groups. The absolute mean tissue concentration of PGE(2) was reduced by 67.6 ± 229.68 pg/mL in arm A, 123.9 ± 284.0 pg/mL in arm B (P = .10 vs arm A), and 174.9 ± 263.62 pg/mL in arm C (P = .02 vs arm A). CONCLUSIONS: In combination with esomeprazole, short-term administration of higher doses of aspirin, but not lower doses or no aspirin, significantly reduced tissue concentrations of PGE(2) in patients with BE with either no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia. These data support further evaluation of higher doses of aspirin and esomeprazole to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma in these patients. Clinical trial registration number NCT00474903.

Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is commonly used in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Evidence demonstrates that it is indicated only in certain situations, and inappropriate use generates unnecessary costs and exposes patients to harms without improving outcomes. METHODS: The Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians reviewed evidence regarding the indications for, and yield of, upper endoscopy in the setting of GERD, and to highlight how clinicians can increase the delivery of high-value health care. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with heartburn and alarm symptoms (dysphagia, bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and recurrent vomiting). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with: Typical GERD symptoms that persist despite a therapeutic trial of 4 to 8 weeks of twice-daily proton-pump inhibitor therapy. Severe erosive esophagitis after a 2-month course of proton-pump inhibitor therapy to assess healing and rule out Barrett esophagus. Recurrent endoscopy after this follow-up examination is not indicated in the absence of Barrett esophagus. History of esophageal stricture who have recurrent symptoms of dysphagia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Upper endoscopy may be indicated: In men older than 50 years with chronic GERD symptoms (symptoms for more than 5 years) and additional risk factors (nocturnal reflux symptoms, hiatal hernia, elevated body mass index, tobacco use, and intra-abdominal distribution of fat) to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett esophagus. For surveillance evaluation in men and women with a history of Barrett esophagus. In men and women with Barrett esophagus and no dysplasia, surveillance examinations should occur at intervals no more frequently than 3 to 5 years. More frequent intervals are indicated in patients with Barrett esophagus and dysplasia.