Screening uptake of colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in first-degree relatives of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer: A multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial (ParCoFit study).

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Quality of Colonoscopy Is Associated With Adenoma Detection and Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers. However, a high incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) has been reported. Colonoscopy is highly dependent on endoscopist skill and is subject to quality variability. We aimed to evaluate the impact of key colonoscopy quality indicators on adenoma detection and prevention of PCCRC in LS. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study focused on LS carriers without previous CRC undergoing colonoscopy surveillance (n = 893). Incident colorectal neoplasia during surveillance and quality indicators of all colonoscopies were analyzed. We performed an emulated target trial comparing the results from the first and second surveillance colonoscopies to assess the effect of colonoscopy quality indicators on adenoma detection and PCCRC incidence. Risk analyses were conducted using a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative incidence of adenoma and PCCRC was 60.6% (95% CI, 55.5%-65.2%) and 7.9% (95% CI, 5.2%-10.6%), respectively. Adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.06-4.3), complete colonoscopies (20% vs 0%; P = .01), and pan-chromoendoscopy use (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.15-3.95) were associated with significant improvement in adenoma detection. PCCRC risk was significantly lower when colonoscopies were performed during a time interval of less than every 3 years (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.97). We observed a consistent but not significant reduction in PCCRC risk for a previous complete examination (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-1.28), adequate bowel preparation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.17-3.24), or previous use of high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.02-2.33). CONCLUSIONS: Complete colonoscopies with adequate bowel preparation and chromoendoscopy use are associated with improved adenoma detection, while surveillance intervals of less than 3 years are associated with a reduction of PCCRC incidence. In LS, high-quality colonoscopy surveillance is of utmost importance for CRC prevention.

Follow-up evaluation of patients with liver test abnormalities detected during SARS-CoV2 infection.

Abnormal liver function tests (A-LFTs) during admission for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are frequent, but its evolution after COVID-19 resolution remains unexplored. We evaluated factors related to A-LFTs during COVID-19 and assessed the liver outcome after patients' discharge. This is a observational study including: (1) retrospective analysis of variables related to A-LFTs during COVID-19; and (2) follow-up evaluation with blood test, transient elastography and liver biopsy in those with persistent A-LFTs. A-LFTs were defined according to CTCAEv4.0. Among 595 patients, 366 (61.5%) showed A-LFTs. The ratio of partial pressure of oxygen and inspired oxygen fraction (P/F) below 200, ferritin ≥1000 ng/mL, male gender and antibiotic and immunomodulatory treatments were related to A-LFTs. Follow-up evaluation was performed in 153 individuals. Persistent A-LFTs at follow-up was similar in patients with/without A-LFTs during admission (14.1% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.104). Fifteen (93%) and 58 (39%) patients with/without A-LFTs at follow-up showed metabolic fatty liver disease criteria (p < 0.001), which were histologically confirmed. In conclusion, A-LFTs during COVID-19 were related to infection severity. Abnormalities remitted at follow-up in >80% of patients, and no correlation between A-LFTs at admission and at follow-up was found. Most patients with A-LFTs at follow-up had non-invasive and histologically proven fatty liver disease.

Personalised surveillance for serrated polyposis syndrome: results from a prospective 5-year international cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). International guidelines recommend surveillance intervals of 1-2 years. However, yearly surveillance likely leads to overtreatment for many. We prospectively assessed a surveillance protocol aiming to safely reduce the burden of colonoscopies. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, we enrolled SPS patients from nine Dutch and Spanish hospitals. Patients were surveilled using a protocol appointing either a 1-year or 2-year interval after each surveillance colonoscopy, based on polyp burden. Primary endpoint was the 5-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia (AN) during surveillance. RESULTS: We followed 271 SPS patients for a median of 3.6 years. During surveillance, two patients developed CRC (cumulative 5-year incidence 1.3%[95% CI 0% to 3.2%]). The 5-year AN incidence was 44% (95% CI 37% to 52%), and was lower for patients with SPS type III (26%) than for patients diagnosed with type I (53%) or type I and III (59%, p<0.001). Most patients were recommended a 2-year interval, and those recommended a 2-year interval were not at increased risk of AN: AN incidence after a 2-year recommendation was 15.6% compared with 24.4% after a 1-year recommendation (OR 0.57, p=0.08). CONCLUSION: Risk stratification substantially reduced colonoscopy burden while achieving CRC incidence similar to previous studies. AN incidence is considerable in SPS patients, but extension of surveillance intervals was not associated with increased AN in those identified as low-risk by the protocol. We identified SPS type III patients as low-risk group that might benefit from even less frequent surveillance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered on http://www.trialregister.nl; trial-ID NTR4609.

Diminutive Polyps With Advanced Histologic Features Do Not Increase Risk for Metachronous Advanced Colon Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: With advances in endoscopic imaging, it is possible to differentiate adenomatous from hyperplastic diminutive (1-5 mm) polyps during endoscopy. With the optical Resect-and-Discard strategy, these polyps are then removed and discarded without histopathology assessment. However, failure to recognize adenomas (vs hyperplastic polyps), or discarding a polyp with advanced histologic features, could result in a patient being considered at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, resulting in an inappropriately long surveillance interval. We collected data from international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are high risk because of diminutive polyps advanced histologic features and their risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia. METHODS: We collected data from 12 cohorts (in the United States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123). Patients at high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia were defined as patients with polyps that had advanced histologic features (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, ≥25% villous features), 3 or more diminutive or small (6-9 mm) nonadvanced adenomas, or an adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm. Using an inverse variance random effects model, we calculated the proportion of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features; the proportion of patients classified as high risk because their diminutive polyps had advanced histologic features; and the risk of these patients for metachronous advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: In 51,510 diminutive polyps, advanced histologic features were observed in 7.1% of polyps from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference in prevalence did not produce a significant difference in the proportions of patients assigned to high-risk status (0.8% of patients in the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25). The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features who were found to have metachronous advanced neoplasia (17.6%) did not differ significantly from the proportion of low-risk patients with metachronous advanced neoplasia (14.6%) (relative risk for high-risk categorization, 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.61). CONCLUSION: In a pooled analysis of data from 12 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms, we found that diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

Narrow-band imaging and high-definition white-light endoscopy in patients with serrated lesions not fulfilling criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome: a randomized controlled trial with tandem colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether narrow-band imaging (NBI) could be more effective than high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in detecting serrated lesions in patients with prior serrated lesions > 5 mm not completely fulfilling serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) criteria. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, cross-over trial in consecutive patients with prior detection of at least one serrated polyp ≥10 mm or ≥ 3 serrated polyps larger than 5 mm, both proximal to the sigmoid colon. Five experienced endoscopists performed same-day tandem colonoscopies, with the order being randomized 1:1 to NBI-HD-WLE or HD-WLE-NBI. All tandem colonoscopies were performed by the same endoscopist. RESULTS: We included 41 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two cohorts: NBI-HD-WLE (n = 21) and HD-WLE-NBI (n = 20). No differences were observed in the serrated lesion detection rate of NBI versus HD-WLE: 47.4% versus 51.9% (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.37-1.91) for the first and second withdrawal, respectively. Equally, no differences were found in the polyp miss rate of NBI versus HD-WLE: 21.3% versus 26.1% (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.43-1.38). Follow-up colonoscopy in nine patients (22%) allowed them to be reclassified as having SPS. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previous serrated lesions, the serrated lesion detection rate was similar with NBI and HD-WLE. A shorter surveillance colonoscopy interval increases the detection of missed serrated polyps and could change the diagnosis of SPS in approximately one in every five patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02406547, registered on April 2, 2015.

High incidence of advanced colorectal neoplasia during endoscopic surveillance in serrated polyposis syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Accordingly, intensive surveillance with annual colonoscopy is advised. The aim of this multicenter study was to describe the risk of advanced lesions in SPS patients undergoing surveillance, and to identify risk factors that could guide the prevention strategy. METHODS: From March 2013 to April 2015, 296 patients who fulfilled criteria I and/or III for SPS were retrospectively recruited at 18 centers. We selected patients in whom successful clearing colonoscopy had been performed and who underwent subsequent endoscopic surveillance. Advanced neoplasia was defined as CRC, advanced adenoma, or advanced serrated lesion that were ≥ 10 mm and/or with dysplasia. Cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was calculated and independent predictors of advanced neoplasia development were identified. RESULTS: In 152 SPS patients a total of 315 surveillance colonoscopies were performed (median 2, range 1 - 7). The 3-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia were 3.1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0 - 6.9) and 42.0 % (95 %CI 32.4 - 51.7), respectively. Fulfilling both I + III criteria and the presence of advanced serrated lesions at baseline colonoscopy were independent predictors of advanced neoplasia development (odds ratio [OR] 1.85, 95 %CI 1.03 - 3.33, P  = 0.04 and OR 2.62, 95 %CI 1.18 - 5.81, P  = 0.02, respectively). During follow-up, nine patients (5.9 %) were referred for surgery for invasive CRC (n = 4, 2.6 %) or because of polyp burden (n = 5, 3.3 %). After total colectomy, 17.9 % patients developed advanced neoplasia in the retained rectum. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SPS have a substantial risk of developing advanced neoplasia under endoscopic surveillance, whereas CRC incidence is low. Personalized endoscopic surveillance based on polyp burden and advanced serrated histology could help to optimize prevention in patients with SPS.

Randomized Clinical Trial: A Normocaloric Low-Fiber Diet the Day Before Colonoscopy Is the Most Effective Approach to Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend either a clear-liquid diet or a low-fiber diet for colonoscopy preparation. Participants in a screening program are usually motivated healthy individuals in which a good tolerability is important to improve adherence to potential surveillance colonoscopies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess whether or not a normocaloric low-fiber diet followed the day before a screening colonoscopy compromises the efficacy of bowel cleansing and may improve the tolerability of bowel preparation. DESIGN: This is a randomized, endoscopist-blinded, noninferiority clinical trial. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care center. PATIENTS: A total of 276 consecutive participants of the Barcelona colorectal cancer screening program were included. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to a clear-liquid diet or a normocaloric low-fiber diet the day before the colonoscopy. Both groups received 4 L of polyethylene glycol in a split-dose regimen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the adequate bowel preparation rate measured with the Boston bowel preparation scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability, fluid-intake perception, hunger, side effects, and acceptability. RESULTS: Participants in both groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 89.1% vs 95.7% in clear-liquid diet and low-fiber diet groups, showing not only noninferiority, but also superiority (p = 0.04). Low-fiber diet participants reported less fluid-intake perception (p = 0.04) and less hunger (p = 0.006), with no differences in bloating or nausea. LIMITATIONS: The single-center design of the study could limit the external validity of the results. The present findings may not be comparable to other clinical settings. CONCLUSION: A normocaloric low-fiber diet the day before a screening colonoscopy achieved better results than a clear-liquid diet in terms of adequate colon preparation. Moreover, it also improved the perception of hunger and excessive fluid intake. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02401802. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A829.

Association study of dietary non-enzymatic antioxidant capacity (NEAC) and colorectal cancer risk in the Spanish Multicase-Control Cancer (MCC-Spain) study.

PURPOSE: Studies attempting to link dietary non-enzymatic antioxidant activity (NEAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk have reported mixed results. We examined this association in the Spanish Multicase-Control Study considering the likely influence of coffee and other dietary factors. METHODS: 1718 CRC cases and 3312 matched-controls provided information about diet through a validated 140-item food frequency questionnaire. Dietary NEAC was estimated for three methods [total radical-trapping antioxidant parameters (TRAP), ferric reducing/antioxidant power (FRAP) and TEAC-ABTS] using published values of NEAC content in food, with and without coffee's NEAC. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated through unconditional logistic regression models adjusted for lifestyle and dietary factors. RESULTS: Overall dietary intake of NEAC was significantly lower in cases compared to controls and associated with a significantly reduced CRC risk, in both men (ORQ5vsQ1 = 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96 for FRAP) and women (ORQ5vsQ1 = 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-085 for FRAP), in multivariate models with and without the antioxidant contribution from coffee. The effect was similar for all the NEAC methods evaluated and for both colon and rectum. The association between dietary NEAC and CRC risk became non-significant when adjusting for fiber intake. However, intakes of NEAC and fiber were correlated. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that intake of an antioxidant-rich plant-based diet, both with and without NEAC from coffee, is associated with decreased CRC risk.

Endoscopic surveillance after colonic polyps and colorrectal cancer resection. 2018 update. / Vigilancia tras resección de pólipos de colon y de cáncer colorrectal. Actualización 2018.

There is limited scientific evidence available to stratify the risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer after resection of colonic polyps and to determine surveillance intervals and is mostly based on observational studies. However, while awaiting further evidence, the criteria of endoscopic follow-up needs to be unified in our setting. Therefore, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine, the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, and the Colorectal Cancer Screening Group of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology, have written this consensus document, which is included in chapter 10 of the "Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Update". Important developments will also be presented as regards the previous edition published in 2009. First of all, situations that require and do not require endoscopic surveillance are established, and the need of endoscopic surveillance of individuals who do not present a special risk of metachronous colon cancer is eliminated. Secondly, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are established in individuals with serrated polyps. Finally, unlike the previous edition, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are given in patients operated on for colorectal cancer. At the same time, it represents an advance on the European guideline for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening, since it eliminates the division between intermediate risk group and high risk group, which means the elimination of a considerable proportion of colonoscopies of early surveillance. Finally, clear recommendations are given on the absence of need for follow-up in the low risk group, for which the European guidelines maintained some ambiguity.

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.

Colorectal cancer risk factors in patients with serrated polyposis syndrome: a large multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is associated with an increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, although the magnitude of the risk remains uncertain. Whereas intensive endoscopic surveillance for CRC prevention is advised, predictors that identify patients who have high CRC risk remain unknown. We performed a multicentre nationwide study aimed at describing the CRC risk in patients with SPS and identifying clinicopathological predictors independently associated with CRC. DESIGN: From March 2013 through September 2014, patients with SPS were retrospectively recruited at 18 Spanish centres. Data were collected from medical, endoscopy and histopathology reports. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify CRC risk factors. RESULTS: In 296 patients with SPS with a median follow-up time of 45 months (IQR 26-79.7), a median of 26 (IQR 18.2-40.7) serrated polyps and 3 (IQR 1-6) adenomas per patient were detected. Forty-seven patients (15.8%) developed CRC at a mean age of 53.9±12.8, and 4 out of 47 (8.5%) tumours were detected during surveillance (cumulative CRC incidence 1.9%). Patients with >2 sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) proximal to splenic flexure and ≥1 proximal SSA/P with high-grade dysplasia were independent CRC risk factors (incremental OR=2, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.24, p=0.006). Patients with no risk factors showed a 55% decrease in CRC risk (OR=0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SPS have an increased risk of CRC, although lower than previously published. Close colonoscopy surveillance in experienced centres show a low risk of developing CRC (1.9% in 5 years). Specific polyp features (SSA/P histology, proximal location and presence of high-grade dysplasia) should be used to guide clinical management.

Association of a let-7 miRNA binding region of TGFBR1 with hereditary mismatch repair proficient colorectal cancer (MSS HNPCC).

The purpose of this study was to identify novel colorectal cancer (CRC)-causing alleles in unexplained familial CRC cases. In order to do so, coding regions in five candidate genes (MGMT, AXIN2, CTNNB1, TGFBR1 and TGFBR2) were sequenced in 11 unrelated microsatellite-stable hereditary non-polyposis CRC (MSS HNPCC) cases. Selected genetic variants were genotyped in a discovery set of 27 MSS HNPCC cases and 85 controls. One genetic variant, rs67687202, in TGFBR1 emerged as significant (P = 0.002), and it was genotyped in a replication set of 87 additional MSS HNPCC-like cases and 338 controls where it was also significantly associated with MSS HNPCC cases (P = 0.041). In the combined genotype data, rs67687202 was associated with a moderate increase in CRC risk (OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 1.13-2.50; P = 0.010). We tested a highly correlated SNP rs868 in 723 non-familial CRC cases compared with 629 controls, and it was not significantly associated with CRC risk (P = 0.370). rs868 is contained in a let-7 miRNA binding site in the 3'UTR of TGFBR1, which might provide a functional basis for the association in MSS HNPCC. In luciferase assays, the risk-associated allele for rs868 was associated with half the luciferase expression in the presence of miRNA let-7b-5p compared with protective allele, suggesting more binding of let-7b-5p and less TGFBR1 expression. Thus, rs868 potentially is a CRC risk-causing allele. Our results support the concept that rs868 is associated with lower TGFBR1 expression thereby increasing CRC risk.

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.).

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.

Whole-exome sequencing identifies rare pathogenic variants in new predisposition genes for familial colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer is an important cause of mortality in the developed world. Hereditary forms are due to germ-line mutations in APC, MUTYH, and the mismatch repair genes, but many cases present familial aggregation but an unknown inherited cause. The hypothesis of rare high-penetrance mutations in new genes is a likely explanation for the underlying predisposition in some of these familial cases. METHODS: Exome sequencing was performed in 43 patients with colorectal cancer from 29 families with strong disease aggregation without mutations in known hereditary colorectal cancer genes. Data analysis selected only very rare variants (0-0.1%), producing a putative loss of function and located in genes with a role compatible with cancer. Variants in genes previously involved in hereditary colorectal cancer or nearby previous colorectal cancer genome-wide association study hits were also chosen. RESULTS: Twenty-eight final candidate variants were selected and validated by Sanger sequencing. Correct family segregation and somatic studies were used to categorize the most interesting variants in CDKN1B, XRCC4, EPHX1, NFKBIZ, SMARCA4, and BARD1. CONCLUSION: We identified new potential colorectal cancer predisposition variants in genes that have a role in cancer predisposition and are involved in DNA repair and the cell cycle, which supports their putative involvement in germ-line predisposition to this neoplasm.

Risk of cancer in cases of suspected lynch syndrome without germline mutation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancers (CRCs) with microsatellite instability (MSI) and a mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemical deficit without hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter are likely to be caused by Lynch syndrome. Some patients with these cancers have not been found to have pathogenic germline mutations and are considered to have Lynch-like syndrome (LLS). The aim of this study was to determine the risk of cancer in families of patients with LLS. METHODS: We studied a population-based cohort of 1705 consecutive patients, performing MSI tests and immunohistochemical analyses of MMR proteins. Patients were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome when they were found to have pathogenic germline mutations. Patients with MSI and loss of MSH2 and/or MSH6 expression, isolated loss of PMS2 or loss of MLH1 without MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, and no pathogenic mutation were considered to have LLS. The clinical characteristics of patients and the age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of cancer in families were compared between groups. RESULTS: The incidence of CRC was significantly lower in families of patients with LLS than in families with confirmed cases of Lynch syndrome (SIR for Lynch syndrome, 6.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.58-9.54; SIR for LLS, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.16-3.56; P < .001). However, the incidence of CRC was higher in families of patients with LLS than in families with sporadic CRC (SIR for sporadic CRC, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.79; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of cancer in families with LLS is lower that of families with Lynch syndrome but higher than that of families with sporadic CRC. These results confirm the need for special screening and surveillance strategies for these patients and their relatives.

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.

Cumulative impact of common genetic variants and other risk factors on colorectal cancer risk in 42,103 individuals.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a substantial heritable component. Common genetic variation has been shown to contribute to CRC risk. A study was conducted in a large multi-population study to assess the feasibility of CRC risk prediction using common genetic variant data combined with other risk factors. A risk prediction model was built and applied to the Scottish population using available data. DESIGN: Nine populations of European descent were studied to develop and validate CRC risk prediction models. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the combined effect of age, gender, family history (FH) and genotypes at 10 susceptibility loci that individually only modestly influence CRC risk. Risk models were generated from case-control data incorporating genotypes alone (n=39,266) and in combination with gender, age and FH (n=11,324). Model discriminatory performance was assessed using 10-fold internal cross-validation and externally using 4187 independent samples. The 10-year absolute risk was estimated by modelling genotype and FH with age- and gender-specific population risks. RESULTS: The median number of risk alleles was greater in cases than controls (10 vs 9, p<2.2 × 10(-16)), confirmed in external validation sets (Sweden p=1.2 × 10(-6), Finland p=2 × 10(-5)). The mean per-allele increase in risk was 9% (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13). Discriminative performance was poor across the risk spectrum (area under curve for genotypes alone 0.57; area under curve for genotype/age/gender/FH 0.59). However, modelling genotype data, FH, age and gender with Scottish population data shows the practicalities of identifying a subgroup with >5% predicted 10-year absolute risk. CONCLUSION: Genotype data provide additional information that complements age, gender and FH as risk factors, but individualised genetic risk prediction is not currently feasible. Nonetheless, the modelling exercise suggests public health potential since it is possible to stratify the population into CRC risk categories, thereby informing targeted prevention and surveillance.