Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation. METHODS: Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation. CONCLUSIONS: CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

Colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years in Israel: Cost-effectiveness and global implications.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at ages <50 years is increasing worldwide. Screening initiation was lowered to 45 years in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of initiating CRC screening at 45 years in Israel was assessed with the aim of informing national policy and addressing internationally relevant questions. METHODS: A validated CRC screening model was calibrated to Israeli data and examined annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy every 10 years from 45 to 74 years (FIT45-74 or Colo45-74) versus from 50 to 74 years (FIT50-74 or Colo50-74). The addition of a fourth colonoscopy at 75 years was explored, subanalyses were performed by sex/ethnicity, and resource demands were estimated. RESULTS: FIT50-74 and Colo50-74 reduced CRC incidence by 57% and 70% and mortality by 70% and 77%, respectively, versus no screening, with greater absolute impact in Jews/Other versus Arabs but comparable relative impact. FIT45-74 further reduced CRC incidence and mortality by an absolute 3% and 2%, respectively. With Colo45-74 versus Colo50-74, CRC cases and deaths increased slightly as three colonoscopies per lifetime shifted to 5 years earlier but mean quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYGs) per person increased. FIT45-74 and Colo45-74 cost 23,800-53,900 new Israeli shekels (NIS)/QALYG and 110,600-162,700 NIS/QALYG, with the lowest and highest values among Jewish/Other men and Arab women, respectively. A fourth lifetime colonoscopy cost 48,700 NIS/QALYG. Lowering FIT initiation to 45 years with modest participation required 19,300 additional colonoscopies in the first 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Beginning CRC screening at 45 years in Israel is projected to yield modest clinical benefits at acceptable costs per QALYG. Despite different estimates by sex/ethnicity, a uniform national policy is favored. These findings can inform Israeli guidelines and serve as a case study internationally.

Prevalence of Gastric Precursor Lesions in Countries With Differential Gastric Cancer Burden: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence of precursor lesions for gastric cancer (GC) and the differential burden between countries of varying GC risk is not well-understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the global prevalence of precursor lesions. METHODS: We estimated the prevalence of atrophic gastritis (AG), gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM), and dysplasia in regions with low, medium, and high GC incidence. Because IM is an advanced manifestation of AG, we assessed the prevalence of less advanced precursors, regardless of the presence of more advanced lesions. Prevalence was sub-stratified by Helicobacter pylori infection, symptomatology, and period (<2000, 2000-2010, and >2010). RESULTS: Among the 582 articles that underwent full-text review, 166 studies met inclusion criteria. The global prevalence estimates of AG, IM, and dysplasia were 25.4%, 16.2%, and 2.0%, respectively, on the basis of 126 studies that reported the prevalence of less advanced precursors, regardless of the presence of more advanced lesions. The prevalence of all precursor lesions was higher in high and medium compared with low GC incidence countries (P < .01). Prevalence of AG and IM was significantly higher among H pylori-infected individuals (P < .01) but not statistically different between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (P > .17). All precursors demonstrated a secular decrease in prevalence over time. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric precursor lesions have differences in prevalence in regions with differential GC incidence and are associated with H pylori infection. Because of the substantial prevalence of precursor lesions in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, symptomatic evaluation may not be sufficient to identify individuals at risk. These estimates provide important insights for tailoring GC prevention strategies.

RISK FACTORS FOR METACHRONOUS COLORECTAL CANCER OR ADVANCED LESIONS AFTER ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF SERRATED POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15-20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to Dec 31, 2023, for CRC or advanced polyps [advanced adenoma (AA) or advanced SP] incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those >10mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1,000 person-years (p-y) were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RR) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 5,903 studies were reviewed and 14 included, with 493,949 patients (mean age 59·5 years, 55% men). Mean follow-up was 4·9 years. CRC incidence per 1,000 p-y was 2·09 (95%CI 1·29-2·90) for advanced SP, 1·52 (0·78-2·25) for SP>10mm, 5·86 (2·16-9·56) for SP with dysplasia, 1·18 (0·77-1·60) for proximal SP, 0·52 (0·08-1·12) for >3SP, 0·50 (0·35-0·66) for non-advanced SP, and 0·44 (0·41-0·46) for normal colonoscopy. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SP vs non-advanced SP (RR 1·84, 95%CI 1·11-3·04), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·92, 2·26-3·77); in SP>10mm vs <10mm (RR 2·61, 1·43-4·77), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 3·52, 2·17-5·69); and in SP with dysplasia vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·71, 2·00-3·67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal vs distal SP, nor in >3SP vs 1-2SP. CONCLUSIONS: CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SP after 4·9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SP.

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

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Cost-Effectiveness of Earlier or More Intensive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Overweight and Obese Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Overweight and obese persons have not only elevated rates of colorectal cancer (CRC), but also higher competing mortality and healthcare spending. We examined the cost-effectiveness of intensified CRC screening in overweight and obese persons. METHODS: We adapted our validated decision analytic model of CRC screening to compare screening starting at 45 or 40 years of age instead of at 50 years of age, or shortening screening intervals, in women and men with body mass index (BMI) ranging from normal to grade III obesity. Strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years (Colo10) or every 5 years (Colo5), or annual fecal immunochemical test. RESULTS: Without screening, sex-specific total CRC deaths were similar for persons with overweight or obesity I-III, reflecting the counterbalancing of higher CRC risk by lower life expectancy as BMI rises. For all BMI and sex groups, Colo10 starting at 45 years of age or FIT starting at 40 years of age were cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Colo10 starting at 40 years of age was cost-effective only for men with obesity II-III, at $93,300 and $80,400 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. Shifting Colo10 to earlier starting ages was always preferred over Colo5 starting at later ages. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis, including varying all-cause mortality, complication, and BMI-specific CRC risks. CONCLUSIONS: CRC screening starting at 45 years of age with colonoscopy, or at 40 years of age with FIT, appears cost-effective for women and men across the range of BMI. In men with obesity II-III, who have the highest CRC but also all-cause mortality risks, colonoscopy starting at 40 years of age appears cost-effective. It remains to be decided whether BMI should be used as a single predictor or incorporated into a multivariable tool to tailor CRC screening.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs). METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs. CONCLUSION: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term.

Clinical implications of conflicting variant interpretations in the cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical impact of commercial laboratories issuing conflicting classifications of genetic variants. METHODS: Results from 2000 patients undergoing a multigene hereditary cancer panel by a single laboratory were analyzed. Clinically significant discrepancies between the laboratory-provided test reports and other major commercial laboratories were identified, including differences between pathogenic/likely pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) classifications, via review of ClinVar archives. For patients carrying a VUS, clinical documentation was assessed for evidence of provider awareness of the conflict. RESULTS: Fifty of 975 (5.1%) patients with non-negative results carried a variant with a clinically significant conflict, 19 with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant reported in APC or MUTYH, and 31 with a VUS reported in CDKN2A, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MUTYH, RAD51C, or TP53. Only 10 of 28 (36%) patients with a VUS with a clinically significant conflict had a documented discussion by a provider about the conflict. Discrepant counseling strategies were used for different patients with the same variant. Among patients with a CDKN2A variant or a monoallelic MUTYH variant, providers were significantly more likely to make recommendations based on the laboratory-reported classification. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the frequency of variant interpretation discrepancies and importance of clinician awareness. Guidance is needed on managing patients with discrepant variants to support accurate risk assessment.

Impact of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on incident and prevalent esophageal cancer in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

The impact of race/ethnicity (RE) or socioeconomic status (SES) on progression from Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal cancer (EC) is not well established. We aimed to evaluate the association between demographic factors and SES on EC diagnosis in an ethnically diverse BE cohort. Patients aged 18-63 with incident BE diagnosed in October 2015-March 2020 were identified in the Optum Clinformatics DataMart Database. Patients were followed until the diagnosis of prevalent EC <1 year or incident EC ≥1 year from BE diagnosis, or until the end of their continuous enrollment period. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to determine associations between demographics, SES factors, BE risk factors, and EC. Demographics of the 12,693 patients included mean age of BE diagnosis 53.0 (SD 8.5) years, 56.4% male, 78.3% White/10.0% Hispanic/6.4% Black/3.0% Asian. The median follow-up was 26.8 (IQR 19.0-42.0) months. In total, 75 patients (0.59%) were diagnosed with EC (46 [0.36%] prevalent EC; 29 [0.23%] incident EC), and 74 patients (0.58%) developed high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (46 [0.36%] prevalent HGD; 28 [0.22%] incident HGD). Adjusted HR (95% CI) for prevalent EC comparing household net worth ≥$150,000 vs. <$150,000 was 0.57 (0.33-0.98). Adjusted HRs (95% CI) for prevalent and incident EC comparing non-White vs. White patients were 0.93 (0.47-1.85) and 0.97 (0.21-3.47), respectively. In summary, a lower SES, captured by the household net worth, was associated with prevalent EC. There was no significant difference in prevalent or incident EC among White vs. non-White patients. EC progression in BE may be similar among racial/ethnic groups, but SES disparities may impact BE outcomes.

Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates at Screening Colonoscopy for Ages 45-49 Years vs Older Ages Since the Introduction of New Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: All major U.S. guidelines now endorse average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at 45-49 years of age. Concerns exist that endoscopic capacity may be strained, that low-risk persons may self-select for screening, and that calculations of the adenoma detection rate may be diluted. We analyzed age-specific screening colonoscopy volumes and lesion detection rates before vs after the endorsement of CRC screening at 45-49 years of age. METHODS: We compared colonoscopy volumes and lesion detection rates in our healthcare system during period 1 (October 2017 to December 2018), before the first change in guidelines, vs period 2 (January 2019 to August 2021), the era of new guidelines. RESULTS: The proportion of first-time screening colonoscopies performed in 45- to 49-year-olds increased from 3.5% to 11.6% (relative risk, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.45-4.61). The period 2 detection rates for adenoma, advanced adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, advanced sessile serrated lesion, adenomas per colonoscopy, and lesions per colonoscopy were very similar for 45- to 49-year-olds (34.3%, 6.3%, 8.6%, 2.9%, 0.58, and 0.69, respectively) and 50- to 54-year-olds (38.2%, 5.8%, 9.4%, 3.0%, 0.63, and 0.76, respectively) at first-time screening, and for 60- to 64-year-olds at rescreening (33.4%, 6.1%, 7.2%, 2.3%, 0.61, and 0.70, respectively). All detection rates, adenomas per colonoscopy, and lesions per colonoscopy increased from period 1 to period 2 (eg, overall adenoma detection rate 35.1% vs 42.6%; P < .0001), without any decreases among 45- to 49-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: In our healthcare system, a lower CRC screening initiation age has modestly affected colonoscopy volume by age without compromising screening yield. Lesion detection rates, including for advanced adenomas, in average-risk 45- to 49-year-olds approximate those in 50- to 54-year-olds at first-time screening and 60- to 64-year-olds at rescreening. National monitoring is needed to assess fully the impact of lowering the CRC screening initiation age.

Colorectal Cancer Incidence After Colonoscopy at Ages 45-49 or 50-54 Years.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at ages younger than 50 years is increasing, leading to proposals to lower the CRC screening initiation age to 45 years. Data on the effectiveness of CRC screening at ages 45-49 years are lacking. METHODS: We studied the association between undergoing colonoscopy at ages 45-49 or 50-54 years and CRC incidence in a retrospective population-based cohort study using Florida's linked Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases with mandated reporting from 2005 to 2017 and Cox models extended for time-varying exposure. RESULTS: Among 195,600 persons with and 2.6 million without exposure to colonoscopy at ages 45-49 years, 276 and 4844 developed CRC, resulting in CRC incidence rates of 20.8 (95% CI, 18.5-23.4) and 30.6 (95% CI, 29.8-31.5) per 100,000 person-years, respectively. Among 660,248 persons with and 2.4 million without exposure to colonoscopy at ages 50-54 years, 798 and 6757 developed CRC, resulting in CRC incidence rates of 19.0 (95% CI, 17.7-20.4) and 51.9 (95% CI, 50.7-53.1) per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios for incident CRC after undergoing compared with not undergoing colonoscopy were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44-0.56) at ages 45-49 years and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.29-0.34) at ages 50-54 years. The results were similar for women and men (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57 and hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.62 at ages 45-49 years, and hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.31-0.39 and hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.32 at ages 50-54 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy at ages 45-49 or 50-54 years was associated with substantial decreases in subsequent CRC incidence. These findings can inform screening guidelines.

Increased Colorectal Cancer Screening Sustained with Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Reports of mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach effectiveness over time are minimal. We aimed to better evaluate a mailed FIT program with longitudinal metrics. METHODS: A total of 10,771 patients aged 50 to 75 years not up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. The intervention arm received an advanced notification call and informational postcard prior to a mailed FIT. Usual care was at the discretion of the primary care provider. Patients were followed for up to 2.5 years. The primary outcome was the difference in cumulative proportion of completed FIT screening between arms. Screening was further examined with the proportion of time up-to-date, consistency of adherence, and frequency of abnormal FIT. RESULTS: The cumulative proportion of FIT completion was higher in the outreach intervention (73.2% vs 55.1%; P < .001). The proportion of time covered by screening was higher in the intervention group (46.8% vs 27.3%; Δ19.6%; 95% confidence interval, 18.2%-20.9%). Patients assigned to FIT outreach were more likely to consistently complete FITs (2 completed of 2 offered) (50.1% vs 21.8%; P < .001). However, for patients who did not complete the FIT during the first cycle, only 17.1% completed a FIT during the second outreach cycle. The number and overall proportion of abnormal FIT was significantly higher in the outreach intervention (6.9% Outreach vs 4.1% Usual Care; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Organized mailed FIT outreach significantly increased colorectal cancer screening over multiple years in this safety-net health system. Although mailing was overall effective, the effect was modest in patients who did not complete FIT in first cycle of intervention. (ClincialTrials.gov, NCT02613260).

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY: Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

Adenoma and Serrated Lesion Detection by Colonoscopy Indication: The ADR-ESS (ADR Extended to all Screening/Surveillance) Score.

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate at screening (ADR) predicts interval colorectal cancer. Monitoring other lesion detection rates and colonoscopy indications has been proposed. We developed a comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit program based on standardized clinical documentation, explored detection rates across indications, and developed the Adenoma Detection Rate - Extended to all Screening / Surveillance (ADR-ESS) score. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we calculated overall and advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rates among 15,253 colonoscopies by 35 endoscopists from 4 endoscopy units across all colonoscopy indications. We explored correlations between detection rates, and the precision and stability of ADR-ESS versus ADR. RESULTS: The overall "screening, first" ADR was 36.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5%-38.1%). The adenoma detection rate was lower for "screening, not first" (relative rate [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) and "family history" (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96), and higher for "surveillance" (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31) and "follow-up, FIT" (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.37). For "screening, first," the detection rates for advanced adenoma, SSL, and advanced SSL were 6.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-7.7%), 7.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-8.2%), and 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.2%), respectively. Adenoma and SSL detection were correlated (r = 0.44; P = .008). ADR-ESS had substantially narrower confidence intervals and less period-to-period variability than ADR, and was not improved by weighting for indication volume and correction for detection by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit based on standardized clinical documentation is feasible. Adenoma detection is a fair but imperfect proxy for SSL detection. ADR-ESS increases the precision of adenoma detection assessments and emphasizes quality across colonoscopy indications.

Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.

Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) could account for a substantial proportion of colorectal cancers. We aimed to increase clarity on SSP prevalence and clinical features. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for original studies published in English since 2000. We included studies of different populations (United States general or similar), interventions (colonoscopy, autopsy), comparisons (world regions, alternative polyp definitions, adenoma), outcomes (prevalence, clinical features), and study designs (cross-sectional). Random-effects regression was used for meta-analysis where possible. RESULTS: We identified 74 relevant colonoscopy studies. SSP prevalence varied by world region, from 2.6% in Asia (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-5.9) to 10.5% in Australia (95% CI, 2.8-18.2). Prevalence values did not differ significantly between the United States and Europe (P = .51); the pooled prevalence was 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4-5.8), and SSPs accounted for 9.4% of polyps with malignant potential (95% CI, 6.6-12.3). The mean prevalence was higher when assessed through high-performance examinations (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.0-14.2; P = .04) and with an alternative definition of clinically relevant serrated polyps (12.3%; 95% CI, 9.3-15.4; P < .001). Increases in prevalence with age were not statistically significant, and prevalence did not differ significantly by sex. Compared with adenomas, a higher proportion of SSPs were solitary (69.0%; 95% CI, 45.9-92.1; P = .08), with diameters of 10 mm or more (19.3%; 95% CI, 12.4-26.2; P = .13) and were proximal (71.5%; 95% CI, 63.5-79.5; P = .008). The mean ages for detection of SSP without dysplasia, with any or low-grade dysplasia, and with high-grade dysplasia were 60.8 years, 65.6 years, and 70.2 years, respectively. The range for proportions of SSPs with dysplasia was 3.7%-42.9% across studies, possibly reflecting different study populations. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review, we found that SSPs are relatively uncommon compared with adenoma. More research is needed on appropriate diagnostic criteria, variations in detection, and long-term risk.

Age-Specific Rates and Time-Courses of Gastrointestinal and Nongastrointestinal Complications Associated With Screening/Surveillance Colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The rates of serious cardiac, neurologic, and pulmonary events attributable to colonoscopy are poorly characterized, and background event rates are usually not accounted for. METHODS: We performed a multistate population-based study using changepoint analysis to determine the rates and timing of serious gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal adverse events associated with screening/surveillance colonoscopy, including analyses by age (45 to <55, 55 to <65, 65 to <75, and ≥75 years). Among 4.5 million persons in the Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases of California, Florida, and New York who underwent screening/surveillance colonoscopy in 2005-2015, we ascertained serious postcolonoscopy events in excess of background rates in Emergency Department (SEDD) and Inpatient Databases (SID). RESULTS: Most serious nongastrointestinal postcolonoscopy events were expected based on the background rate and not associated with colonoscopy itself. However, associated nongastrointestinal events predominated over gastrointestinal events at ages ≥65 years, including more myocardial infarctions plus ischemic strokes than perforations at ages ≥75 years (361 [95% confidence intervals {CI} 312-419] plus 1,279 [95% CI 1,182-1,384] vs 912 [95% CI 831-1,002] per million). At all ages, the observed-to-expected ratios for days 0-7, 0-30, and 0-60 after colonoscopy were substantially >1 for gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation, but minimally >1 for most nongastrointestinal complications. Risk periods ranged from 1 to 125 days depending on complication type and age. No excess postcolonoscopy in-hospital deaths were observed. DISCUSSION: Although crude counts substantially overestimate nongastrointestinal events associated with colonoscopy, nongastrointestinal complications exceed bleeding and perforation risk in older persons. The inability to ascertain modifications to antiplatelet therapy was a study limitation. Our results can inform benefit-to-risk determinations for preventive colonoscopy.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment vs Education to Promote Screening Uptake.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification has been proposed as a strategy to improve participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence is lacking. We performed a randomized controlled trial of risk stratification using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT) on screening intent and completion. METHODS: A total of 230 primary care patients eligible for first-time CRC screening were randomized to risk assessment via CCRAT or education control. Follow-up of screening intent and completion was performed by record review and phone at 6 and 12 months. We analyzed change in intent after intervention, time to screening, overall screening completion rates, and screening completion by CCRAT risk score tertile. RESULTS: Of the patients, 61.7% of patients were aged <60 years, 58.7% female, and 94.3% with college or higher education. Time to screening did not differ between arms (hazard ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.18], P = 0.24). At 12 months, screening completion was 38.6% with CCRAT vs 44.0% with education (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% CI 0.47-1.37], P = 0.41). Changes in screening intent did not differ between the risk assessment and education arms (precontemplation to contemplation: OR 1.52 [95% CI 0.81-2.86], P = 0.19; contemplation to precontemplation: OR 1.93 [95% CI 0.45-8.34], P = 0.38). There were higher screening completion rates at 12 months in the top CCRAT risk tertile (52.6%) vs the bottom (32.4%) and middle (31.6%) tertiles (P = 0.10). DISCUSSION: CCRAT risk assessment did not increase screening participation or intent. Risk stratification might motivate persons classified as higher CRC risk to complete screening, but unintentionally discourage screening among persons not identified as higher risk.