Adenoma detection rate and tolerability of 2 ultra-low-volume bowel preparations in screening: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR), recognized as a surrogate marker for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality reduction, is closely linked to the efficacy of bowel cleansing. However, there is a dearth of evidence examining the impact on ADR when using 2 distinct very-low-dose bowel cleansing products. This study sought to compare ADR in an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT)-based organized screening program by using 1 L of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEGA) versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), both administered in a split-dose regimen. METHODS: We conducted a comparative, parallel, randomized, noninferiority, and low-intervention clinical trial targeting individuals from a population CRC screening program aged 50 to 69 years with a positive iFOBT result scheduled for a workup colonoscopy in the morning. Participants were randomized to either 1L-PEGA or SPMC for bowel cleansing. The main outcome was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were bowel preparation quality, safety, tolerability, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 1002 subjects, 501 were included in each group. There were no differences between groups with respect to pooled ADR (SPMC, 56.5% [95% CI, 52.1-60.8]; 1L-PEGA, 53.7% [95% CI, 49.3-58.0]; relative risk, .95 [95% CI, .85-1.06]); therefore, SPMC demonstrated noninferiority in ADR compared with 1L-PEGA (difference, 2.8%; 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit, -3.4). In addition, there were no significant differences in mean lesions regardless of size and location between arms. Bowel preparation favored 1L-PEGA (96.2% vs 89.2%, P < .001), whereas SPMC exhibited significantly higher safety and tolerability, as shown by fewer nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: SPMC emerged as a noninferior laxative compared with 1L-PEGA concerning ADR. Despite the superior bowel preparation quality associated with 1L-PEGA, the safety, tolerability, and overall satisfaction of participants were higher with SPMC. (Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT: 2019-003186-18.).

Evaluating the Potential of Polygenic Risk Score to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer has high incidence and associated mortality worldwide. Screening programs are recommended for men and women over 50. Intermediate screens such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) select patients for colonoscopy with suboptimal sensitivity. Additional biomarkers could improve the current scenario. METHODS: We included 2,893 individuals with a positive FIT test. They were classified as cases when a high-risk lesion for colorectal cancer was detected after colonoscopy, whereas the control group comprised individuals with low-risk or no lesions. 65 colorectal cancer risk genetic variants were genotyped. Polygenic risk score (PRS) and additive models for risk prediction incorporating sex, age, FIT value, and PRS were generated. RESULTS: Risk score was higher in cases compared with controls [per allele OR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.06; P < 0.0001]. A 2-fold increase in colorectal cancer risk was observed for subjects in the highest decile of risk alleles (≥65), compared with those in the first decile (≤54; OR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.59-3.12; P < 0.0001). The model combining sex, age, FIT value, and PRS reached the highest accuracy for identifying patients with a high-risk lesion [cross-validated area under the ROC curve (AUROC): 0.64; 95% CI, 0.62-0.66]. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first investigation analyzing PRS in a two-step colorectal cancer screening program. PRS could improve current colorectal cancer screening, most likely for higher at-risk subgroups. However, its capacity is limited to predict colorectal cancer risk status and should be complemented by additional biomarkers. IMPACT: PRS has capacity for risk stratification of colorectal cancer suggesting its potential for optimizing screening strategies alongside with other biomarkers.

Prevalence of adenomatous polyposis in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program and risk of advanced neoplasia during follow-up.

BACKGROUND : Current guidelines recommend genetic counseling and intensive colonoscopy surveillance for patients with ≥ 10 colorectal adenomas based on scarce data. We investigated the prevalence of this condition in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal (CRC) screening program, and the incidence of metachronous lesions during follow-up. METHODS: We retrospectively included all FIT-positive participants with ≥ 10 adenomas at index colonoscopy between 2010 and 2018. Surveillance colonoscopies were collected until 2019. Patients with inherited syndromes, serrated polyposis syndrome, total colectomy, or lacking surveillance data were excluded. The cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk factors for metachronous advanced neoplasia were investigated by multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: 215 of 9582 participants (2.2 %) had ≥ 10 adenomas. Germline genetic testing was performed in 92 % of patients with ≥ 20 adenomas, identifying two inherited syndromes (3.3 %). The 3-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia were 1 % and 16 %, respectively. In 39 patients (24.2 %), no polyps were found on first surveillance colonoscopy. The presence of an advanced adenoma was independently associated with a higher risk of advanced neoplasia at first surveillance colonoscopy (odds ratio 3.91, 95 %CI 1.12-13.62; P = 0.03). Beyond the first surveillance colonoscopy, the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was lower. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of ≥ 10 adenomas in a FIT-based CRC screening program was 2.2 %; a small proportion of inherited syndromes were detected, even amongst those with ≥ 20 adenomas. A low rate of post-colonoscopy CRC was observed and the risk of advanced neoplasia beyond the first surveillance colonoscopy tended to progressively decrease throughout successive follow-ups.

Fecal MicroRNA-Based Algorithm Increases Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: An algorithm based on fecal levels of 2 microRNAs (miR-421 and miR-27a-3p), fecal hemoglobin concentration, and patient age and sex can identify patients with advanced colorectal neoplasia. We investigated whether this algorithm, called miRFec, could increase effectiveness and efficiency of fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. METHODS: We obtained data and fecal samples from 767 persons with a positive result from the FIT who then underwent colonoscopy examination while participating a population-based CRC screening program, from March 2011 through May 2017 in Barcelona, Spain. Fecal miRNAs were isolated from the buffer contained in the original FIT collection device and analyzed by quantitative reverse transcription PCR. Aims were to evaluate the usefulness of the miRFec algorithm in identifying persons at greatest risk for CRC who should be prioritized for colonoscopy examination and individuals at low risk for whom colonoscopy could be avoided. RESULTS: Of the 767 study subjects, 414 (54.0%) were found by colonoscopy to have advanced colorectal neoplasia (67 with CRC and 347 with advanced adenomas) and 353 (46.0%) were found to have either non-advanced adenomas (n = 136) or a normal examination (n = 217). MiRFec algorithm scores (1-4) were independently associated with the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (P < .001). The miRFec algorithm differentiated patients with CRC from those with non-advanced adenomas or normal colonoscopy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 90% (95% CI, 86-94). Subjects with miRFec scores in the 4th quartile (above 3.09, high-risk group) were 8-fold more likely to have advanced colorectal neoplasia than subjects with miRFec scores in the 1st quartile (below 2.14, low-risk group). Subjects in the low-risk group had a positive predictive value below 30% for detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. When we used a 50% specificity cut-off value, the miRFec algorithm identified 97% of patients with CRC and would allow 264 subjects (34.4%) to avoid colonoscopy examination. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm based on fecal levels of 2 miRNAs and hemoglobin, patient age and sex (miRFec) differentiated patients with CRC from those with non-advanced adenomas or normal colonoscopy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 90% and avoided 34% of colonoscopies. Inclusion of this algorithm in FIT-based CRC screening programs could increase their effectiveness and efficiency.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions. METHODS: The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Identification and Validation of MicroRNA Profiles in Fecal Samples for Detection of Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in the population at average risk. The most extended strategy in organized programs involves the fecal immunochemical test, which is limited by low sensitivity for the detection of advanced adenomas (AAs). We aimed to identify microRNA (miRNA) signatures in fecal samples that identify patients with AAs or CRC and might be used in noninvasive screening. METHODS: Our study comprised 4 stages. In the discovery phase, we performed genome-wide miRNA expression profiling of 124 fresh, paired colorectal tumor and nontumor samples (30 CRC; 32 AAs) from patients in Spain. In the technical validation stage, miRNAs with altered expression levels in tumor vs nontumor tissues were quantified by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction in fecal samples from a subset of patients included in the discovery phase (n = 39) and individuals without colorectal neoplasms (controls, n = 39). In the clinical validation stage, the miRNAs found to be most significantly up-regulated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis were measured in an independent set of fecal samples (n = 767) from patients with positive results from fecal immunochemical tests in a CRC screening program. Finally, we developed a model to identify patients with advanced neoplasms (CRCs or AAs) based on their miRNA profiles, using findings from colonoscopy as the reference standard. RESULTS: Among 200 and 324 miRNAs significantly deregulated in CRC and AA tissues, respectively, 7 and 5 of these miRNAs were also found to be deregulated in feces (technical validation). Of them, MIR421, MIR130b-3p, and MIR27a-3p were confirmed to be upregulated in fecal samples from patients with advanced neoplasms. In our model, the combination of fecal level of MIR421, MIR27a-3p, and hemoglobin identified patients with CRC with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93, compared with an AUC of 0.67 for fecal hemoglobin concentration alone. CONCLUSIONS: We found that increased levels of 2 miRNAs and hemoglobin in feces can identify patients with AAs or CRC more accurately than fecal hemoglobin concentration alone. Assays for these miRNAs might be added to fecal tests for the detection of CRC or AAs.

Colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive participants from a colorectal cancer screening program.

Background and study aims Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and negative colonoscopy is unknown. We aimed to ascertain the cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and the manifestation of other lesions that could explain the test positivity in individuals with a negative colonoscopy in a population screening program. Patients and method Observational study in participants from the first round of a CRC screening program (2010 - 2012) with positive-FIT (≥ 20 µg/g of feces) and negative colonoscopy (without neoplasia). A 42- to 76-month follow-up was performed searching in the National Health Service database and by a brief structured telephonic interview. Results Of 2659 FIT-positive individuals who underwent colonoscopy, 811 (30.5 %) had a negative colonoscopy. Three PCCRC (0.4 %) were detected within 11 - 28 months and accelerated carcinogenesis was ruled out. Among those with normal colonoscopy, 32 (5 %) relevant lesions were detected at follow-up. One-third of them (11/32) were significant neoplasias: a gastric cancer, a small-bowel lymphoma, six advanced colorectal adenomas, and the three PCCRC. The 21 remaining lesions were inflammatory, vascular disorders, or non-advanced colorectal adenomas. Conclusions The vast majority (95 %) of individuals did not present any subsequent lesion that could explain the FIT positivity. The very low incidence (0.4 %) and characteristics of PCCRC observed in our cohort reinforce the concept that, although a positive FIT preselects high risk individuals, a high quality colonoscopy is the paramount factor in preventing PCCRC. Improving quality standards of colonoscopy are required to strengthen the current CRC screening strategies.

Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Multiple Serrated Polyps and Their First-Degree Relatives.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated whether patients with multiple serrated polyps, but not meeting the World Health Organization criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome, and their relatives have similar risks for colorectal cancer (CRC) as those diagnosed with serrated polyposis. METHODS: We collected data from patients with more than 10 colonic polyps, recruited in 2008-2009 from 24 hospitals in Spain for a study of causes of multiple colonic polyps. We analyzed data from 53 patients who met the criteria for serrated polyposis and 145 patients who did not meet these criteria, but who had more than 10 polyps throughout the colon, of which more than 50% were serrated. We calculated age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for CRC in both groups, as well as in their first-degree relatives. RESULTS: The prevalence of CRC was similar between patients with confirmed serrated polyposis and multiple serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.82; P = .40). The SIR for CRC in patients with serrated polyposis (0.51; 95% CI, 0.01-2.82) did not differ significantly from the SIR for CRC in patients with multiple serrated polyps (0.74; 95% CI, 0.20-1.90; P = .70). The SIR for CRC also did not differ significantly between first-degree relatives of these groups (serrated polyposis: 3.28, 95% CI, 2.16-4.77; multiple serrated polyps: 2.79, 95% CI, 2.10-3.63; P = .50). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no differences in the incidence of CRC between groups during the follow-up period (log-rank, 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of CRC in patients with multiple serrated polyps who do not meet the criteria for serrated polyposis, and in their first-degree relatives, is similar to that of patients diagnosed with serrated polyposis.

Reassessment colonoscopy to diagnose serrated polyposis syndrome in a colorectal cancer screening population.

Background and study aims Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is a high risk condition for colorectal cancer (CRC). Surveillance strategies for patients with serrated lesions remain controversial. We aimed to evaluate a diagnostic strategy to detect SPS consistently during reassessment colonoscopy in patients with proximal serrated lesions. Methods This was a retrospective study of all individuals from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based CRC screening program (2010 - 2013) with one or more serrated lesions of ≥ 5 mm proximal to the sigmoid colon on baseline colonoscopy. We analyzed all individuals empirically scheduled for a reassessment colonoscopy aimed at diagnosing SPS within 1 year. Reassessment colonoscopy was performed with standard white-light or chromoendoscopy ±â€Šhigh definition endoscopy depending on availability. SPS diagnosis was based on the cumulative number of polyps in both the baseline and reassessment colonoscopies. Factors associated with SPS diagnosis were analyzed. Results From 3444 screening colonoscopies, 196 patients met the study entry criteria, of whom 11 patients (0.32 %) met the criteria for SPS on baseline colonoscopy. Reassessment colonoscopies were performed in 71 patients at 11.9 ±â€Š1.7 months and detected 20 additional patients with SPS, a tripling of the rate of SPS up to 0.90 %. Independent factors associated with SPS diagnosis were: having five or more proximal serrated lesions (odds ratio [OR] 4.01 [95 % confidence interval 1.20 - 13.45]; P = 0.02) or two or more sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm (OR 6.35 [1.40 - 28.81]; P = 0.02) on baseline colonoscopy and the use of chromoendoscopy ±â€Šhigh definition endoscopy during reassessment colonoscopy (OR 4.99 [1.11 - 22.36]; P = 0.04). Conclusions A 1-year reassessment colonoscopy using chromoendoscopy and high definition endoscopes substantially improves SPS detection in individuals from a FIT-based screening program with proximal serrated lesions. Five or more proximal serrated lesions or two or more sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm could be thresholds for requiring a reassessment colonoscopy. Prospective studies are required to validate these results and adjust surveillance recommendations in patients with serrated lesions.

Endoscopic surveillance in patients with multiple (10-100) colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic surveillance in patients with multiple colorectal polyps aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, as well as the need for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of developing CRC or the need for surgery during endoscopic surveillance in a cohort of patients with multiple (10 - 100) colorectal polyps. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicentrer, longitudinal, observational study in 15 CRC high risk clinics in Spain, carried out between January 2009 and December 2010. Patients who were included in the EPIPOLIP trial and had at least 1 year of follow-up were included in the study. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of CRC at least 1 year following the initial colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was the need for colorectal surgery. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were followed for a median of 3.8 years. Patients underwent a median of 5 colonoscopies, and 17 patients (6.4 %) were diagnosed with CRC. A total of 32 patients (12.1 %) underwent surgery, including 15 (5.7 %) for prophylaxis without a diagnosis of CRC. The corresponding incidence density rates for CRC and colorectal surgery were 1.4 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.7 to 2.1) and 2.7 (95 %CI 1.7 to 3.6) per 100 patient-years, respectively. Only the presence of symptoms at first colonoscopy was independently associated with CRC diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 7.7, 95 %CI 1.1 to 59.3) and colorectal surgery (HR 4.6, 95 %CI 1.02 to 20.6). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with more than 10 neoplastic polyps required frequent colonoscopies within a short follow-up period. More than 10 % of patients required colorectal surgery within 4 years, more than half for incident CRC.

Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia according to fecal hemoglobin concentration in a colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The latest generation of fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) allows for quantitation of hemoglobin in feces, allowing for selection of optimal cut-off concentrations. We investigated whether individuals with positive results from quantitative FITs, in combination with other factors, could be identified as being at greatest risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: In a retrospective study, we analyzed data from a consecutive series of 3109 participants with positive results from FITs (≥20 µg/g of feces) included in the first round of the Barcelona colorectal cancer screening program, from December 2009 through February 2012. All participants underwent colonoscopy and were assigned to groups with any advanced colorectal neoplasia or with nonadvanced colorectal neoplasia (but with another diagnosis or normal examination findings). RESULTS: Median fecal hemoglobin concentrations were significantly higher in participants with advanced colorectal neoplasia (105 µg/g; interquartile range, 38-288 µg/g) compared with participants with nonadvanced colorectal neoplasia (47 µg/g; interquartile range, 23-119 µg/g) (P < .001). Positive predictive values for advanced colorectal neoplasia, determined using arbitrary fecal hemoglobin concentrations, differed with sex and age. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified sex (men: odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.41), age (60-69 y: OR, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.44), and fecal hemoglobin concentration (>177 µg/g: OR, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 3.07-4.71) as independent predictive factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia. Combining these factors, we identified 16 risk categories associated with different probabilities of identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia. Risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia increased 11.46-fold among individuals in the highest category compared with the lowest category; positive predictive values ranged from 21.3% to 75.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal hemoglobin concentration, in addition to sex and age, in individuals with positive results from FITs can be used to stratify probability for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. These factors should be used to prioritize individuals for colonoscopy examination.

Rate of detection of advanced neoplasms in proximal colon by simulated sigmoidoscopy vs fecal immunochemical tests.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We compared the ability of biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and one-time sigmoidoscopy to detect colon side-specific advanced neoplasms in a population-based, multicenter, nationwide, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We identified asymptomatic men and women, 50-69 years old, through community health registries and randomly assigned them to groups that received a single colonoscopy examination or biennial FIT. Sigmoidoscopy yield was simulated from results obtained from the colonoscopy group, according to the criteria proposed in the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial for colonoscopy referral. Patients who underwent FIT and were found to have ≥75 ng hemoglobin/mL were referred for colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from 5059 subjects in the colonoscopy group and 10,507 in the FIT group. The main outcome was rate of detection of any advanced neoplasm proximal to the splenic flexure. RESULTS: Advanced neoplasms were detected in 317 subjects (6.3%) in the sigmoidoscopy simulation group compared with 288 (2.7%) in the FIT group (odds ratio for sigmoidoscopy, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.70; P = .0001). Sigmoidoscopy also detected advanced distal neoplasia in a higher percentage of patients than FIT (odds ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-3.10; P = .0001). The methods did not differ significantly in identifying patients with advanced proximal neoplasms (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.76; P = .44). This was probably due to the lower performance of both strategies in detecting patients with proximal lesions (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 19.1% of patients and FIT in 14.9% of patients) vs distal ones (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 86.8% of patients and FIT in 33.5% of patients). Sigmoidoscopy, but not FIT, detected proximal lesions in lower percentages of women (especially those 50-59 years old) than men. CONCLUSIONS: Sigmoidoscopy and FIT have similar limitations in detecting advanced proximal neoplasms, which depend on patients' characteristics; sigmoidoscopy underperforms for women 50-59 years old. Screening strategies should be designed on the basis of target population to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00906997.

Prevalence and characteristics of MUTYH-associated polyposis in patients with multiple adenomatous and serrated polyps.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to determine the prevalence of MUTYH mutations in patients with multiple colonic polyps and to explore the best strategy for diagnosing MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP) in these patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This study included 405 patients with at least 10 colonic polyps each. All cases were genetically tested for the three most frequent MUTYH mutations. Whole-gene analysis was performed in heterozygous patients and in 216 patients lacking the three most frequent mutations. Polyps from 56 patients were analyzed for the KRAS-Gly12Cys and BRAF V600E somatic mutations. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (6.7%) patients were diagnosed with MAP, of which 40.8% showed serrated polyps. The sensitivity of studying only the three common variants was 74.1%. Of 216 patients without any monoallelic mutation in common variants, whole-gene analysis revealed biallelic pathogenic mutation in only one. G396D mutation was associated with serrated lesions and older age at diagnosis. There was a strong association between germinal MUTYH mutation and KRAS Gly12Cys somatic mutation in polyps. BRAF V600E mutation was found in 74% of serrated polyps in MUTYH-negative patients and in none of the polyps of MAP patients. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a low frequency of MUTYH mutations among patients with multiple adenomatous and serrated polyps. The MAP phenotype frequently included patients with serrated polyps, especially when G396D mutation was involved. Our results show that somatic molecular markers of polyps can be useful in identifying MAP cases and support the need for the complete MUTYH gene analysis only in patients heterozygous for recurrent variants.

Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms according to distal colorectal findings: comparison of sigmoidoscopy-based strategies.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer with sigmoidoscopy benefits from the fact that distal findings predict the risk of advanced proximal neoplasms (APNs). This study was aimed at comparing the existing strategies of postsigmoidoscopy referral to colonoscopy in terms of accuracy and resources needed. METHODS: Asymptomatic individuals aged 50-69 years were eligible for a randomized controlled trial designed to compare colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test. Sigmoidoscopy yield was estimated from results obtained in the colonoscopy arm according to three sets of criteria of colonoscopy referral (from those proposed in the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Screening for COlon REctum [SCORE], and Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention [NORCCAP] trials). Advanced neoplasm detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy to detect one APN were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify distal findings associated with APN. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: APN was found in 255 of 5059 (5.0%) individuals. Fulfillment of UK (6.2%), SCORE (12.0%), and NORCCAP (17.9%) criteria varied statistically significantly (P < .001). The NORCCAP strategy obtained the highest sensitivity for APN detection (36.9%), and the UK approach reached the highest specificity (94.6%). The number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy to detect one APN was 6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 7), 8 (95% CI = 6 to 9), and 10 (95% CI = 8 to 12) when the UK, SCORE, and NORCCAP criteria were used, respectively. The logistic regression analysis identified distal adenoma ≥10 mm (odds ratio = 3.77; 95% CI = 2.52 to 5.65) as the strongest independent predictor of APN. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the NORCCAP criteria achieved the highest sensitivity for APN detection, the UK recommendations benefited from the lowest number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy.

Relationship of colonoscopy-detected serrated polyps with synchronous advanced neoplasia in average-risk individuals.

BACKGROUND: Serrated cancers account for 10% to 20% of all colorectal cancers (CRC) and more than 30% of interval cancers. The presence of proximal serrated polyps and large (≥10 mm) serrated polyps (LSP) has been correlated with colorectal neoplasia. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of serrated polyps and their association with synchronous advanced neoplasia in a cohort of average-risk population and to assess the efficacy of one-time colonoscopy and a biennial fecal immunochemical test for reducing CRC-related mortality. This study focused on the sample of 5059 individuals belonging to the colonoscopy arm. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: The ColonPrev study, a population-based, multicenter, nationwide, randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: A total of 5059 asymptomatic men and women aged 50 to 69 years. INTERVENTION: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence of serrated polyps and their association with synchronous advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: Advanced neoplasia was detected in 520 individuals (10.3%) (CRC was detected in 27 [0.5%] and advanced adenomas in 493 [9.7%]). Serrated polyps were found in 1054 individuals (20.8%). A total of 329 individuals (6.5%) had proximal serrated polyps, and 90 (1.8%) had LSPs. Proximal serrated polyps or LSPs were associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-4.45 and OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.31-2.07, respectively). Also, LSPs were associated with advanced neoplasia (OR 2.49, 95% CI, 1.47-4.198), regardless of their proximal (OR 4.15, 95% CI, 1.69-10.15) or distal (OR 2.61, 95% CI, 1.48-4.58) locations. When we analyzed subtypes of serrated polyps, proximal hyperplasic polyps were related to advanced neoplasia (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.13-2.28), although no correlation with the location of the advanced neoplasia was observed. LIMITATIONS: Pathology criteria for the diagnosis of serrated polyps were not centrally reviewed. The morphology of the hyperplasic polyps (protruded or flat) was not recorded. Finally, because of the characteristics of a population-based study carried out in average-risk patients, the proportion of patients with CRC was relatively small. CONCLUSION: LSPs, but not proximal serrated polyps, are associated with the presence of synchronous advanced neoplasia. Further studies are needed to determine the risk of proximal hyperplastic polyps.

Clinical subtypes and molecular characteristics of serrated polyposis syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated clinical and molecular differences between the different phenotypes of serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) and the frequency of mutations in BRAF or KRAS in polyps from patients with SPS. METHODS: We collected data on clinical and demographic characteristics of 50 patients who fulfilled the criteria for SPS. Polymerase chain reaction and sequence analysis were used to identify BRAF and KRAS mutations in 432 polyps collected from 37 patients; we analyzed CpG island methylator phenotypes in 272 of these polyps. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (30%) had type 1 SPS and 35 had type 2 SPS. There were no significant differences in age at diagnosis, sex, smoking frequency, body mass index, or colorectal cancer predisposition between groups of patients, or in the pathologic or molecular characteristics of their polyps. A familial history of colorectal cancer or colonic polyps was reported more frequently by patients with type 2 SPS. BRAF mutations were found in 63% of polyps and KRAS mutations were found in 9.9%; 43.4% of polyps had the CpG island methylator phenotype-high phenotype. A per-patient analysis revealed that all patients had a BRAF or KRAS mutation in more than 25% of their polyps; 84.8% of patients had a mutation in BRAF or KRAS in more than 50% of their polyps. CONCLUSIONS: Except for a greater likelihood of familial history of colorectal cancer or colonic polyps in patients with type 2 SPS, we found no significant demographic, pathologic, or molecular differences between types 1 and 2 SPS. All patients had a BRAF or KRAS mutation in at least 25% of their polyps.

[Timing of polyethylene glycol administration is a key factor in the tolerability and efficacy of colon preparation in colorectal cancer screening]. / La hora de ingesta del polietilenglicol es un factor clave en la tolerancia y eficacia de la preparación del colon en individuos de un programa poblacional de cribado de cáncer colorrectal.

INTRODUCTION: The quality and tolerability of antegrade gut lavage bowel preparation are key elements in the success of population-based colorectal cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cleansing quality and tolerability according to the timing of polyethylene glycol administration in persons undergoing colorectal cancer screening. METHOD: Participants in colorectal cancer screening were randomized to two groups: a) control group (colonoscopy scheduled at 9-12 h); preparation with polyethylene glycol on the previous afternoon; b) study group (colonoscopy scheduled at 12-15 h): preparation with polyethylene glycol on the morning of the colonoscopy, with the option of a split dose. The quality of cleansing was evaluated with the Boston scale and tolerability through a questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 282 participants were included: preparation was carried out the day before the procedure in 134 and on the same day in 148, of which 26 received a split dose. Cleansing was adequate in 95% (n=268) of the participants. The quality of cleansing was higher in the study group (P=.045). The interval between the end of administration and the beginning of the procedure was inversely correlated with the Boston scale score (P=.036; r=-0.125). Tolerability was unrelated to the time of administration (P>.2). Acceptance of the timing of administration was lower in the study group than in the control group (26% vs 10%, respectively; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preparation as close as possible to the colonoscopy improves the quality of cleansing with no detrimental effects on tolerability, although this option is less comfortable.

Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are accepted strategies for colorectal-cancer screening in the average-risk population. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial involving asymptomatic adults 50 to 69 years of age, we compared one-time colonoscopy in 26,703 subjects with FIT every 2 years in 26,599 subjects. The primary outcome was the rate of death from colorectal cancer at 10 years. This interim report describes rates of participation, diagnostic findings, and occurrence of major complications at completion of the baseline screening. Study outcomes were analyzed in both intention-to-screen and as-screened populations. RESULTS: The rate of participation was higher in the FIT group than in the colonoscopy group (34.2% vs. 24.6%, P<0.001). Colorectal cancer was found in 30 subjects (0.1%) in the colonoscopy group and 33 subjects (0.1%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 1.64; P=0.99). Advanced adenomas were detected in 514 subjects (1.9%) in the colonoscopy group and 231 subjects (0.9%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97 to 2.69; P<0.001), and nonadvanced adenomas were detected in 1109 subjects (4.2%) in the colonoscopy group and 119 subjects (0.4%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 9.80; 95% CI, 8.10 to 11.85; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects in the FIT group were more likely to participate in screening than were those in the colonoscopy group. On the baseline screening examination, the numbers of subjects in whom colorectal cancer was detected were similar in the two study groups, but more adenomas were identified in the colonoscopy group. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00906997.).

Pandemic influenza A(H1N1) outbreak among a group of medical students who traveled to the Dominican Republic.

BACKGROUND: From the beginning of the influenza pandemic until the time the outbreak described here was detected, 77,201 cases of pandemic influenza A(H1N1) with 332 deaths had been reported worldwide, mostly in the United States and Mexico. All of the cases reported in Spain until then had a recent history of travel to Mexico, the Dominican Republic, or Chile. We describe an outbreak of influenza among medical students who traveled from Spain to the Dominican Republic in June 2009. METHODS: We collected diagnostic samples and clinical histories from consenting medical students who had traveled to the Dominican Republic and from their household contacts after their return to Spain. RESULTS: Of 113 students on the trip, 62 (55%) developed symptoms; 39 (45%) of 86 students tested had laboratory evidence of influenza A(H1N1) infection. Most students developed symptoms either just before departure from the Dominican Republic or within days of returning to Spain. The estimated secondary attack rate of influenza-like illness among residential contacts of ill students after return to Spain was 2.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The attack rate of influenza A(H1N1) can vary widely depending on the circumstances of exposure. We report a high attack rate among a group of traveling medical students but a much lower secondary attack rate among their contacts after return from the trip. These findings may aid the development of recommendations to prevent influenza.