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).

Predictive Value of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Symptomatic Patients without Colorectal Cancer: A Post-Hoc Analysis within the COLONPREDICT Cohort.

We aimed to assess the risk of cancer in patients with abdominal symptoms after a complete colonoscopy without colorectal cancer (CRC), according to the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) concentration, as well as its diagnostic accuracy. For this purpose, we performed a post-hoc analysis within a cohort of 1431 patients from the COLONPREDICT study, prospectively designed to assess the fecal immunochemical test accuracy in detecting CRC. Over 36.5 ± 8.4 months, cancer was detected in 115 (8%) patients. Patients with CEA values higher than 3 ng/mL revealed an increased risk of cancer (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.1), CRC (HR 4.4, 95% CI 1.1-17.7) and non-gastrointestinal cancer (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.8). A new malignancy was detected in 51 (3.6%) patients during the first year and three variables were independently associated: anemia (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-5.8), rectal bleeding (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7) and CEA level >3 ng/mL (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.7-7.1). However, CEA was increased only in 31.8% (95% CI, 16.4-52.7%) and 50% (95% CI, 25.4-74.6%) of patients with and without anemia, respectively, who would be diagnosed with cancer during the first year of follow-up. On the basis of this information, CEA should not be used to assist in the triage of patients presenting with lower bowel symptoms who have recently been ruled out a CRC.

Risk of gastrointestinal cancer in a symptomatic cohort after a complete colonoscopy: Role of faecal immunochemical test.

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been recommended to assess symptomatic patients for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Nevertheless, some conditions could theoretically favour blood originating in proximal areas of the gastrointestinal tract passing through the colon unmetabolized. A positive FIT result could be related to other gastrointestinal cancers (GIC). AIM: To assess the risk of GIC detection and related death in FIT-positive symptomatic patients (threshold 10 µg Hb/g faeces) without CRC. METHODS: Post hoc cohort analysis performed within two prospective diagnostic test studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of different FIT analytical systems for CRC and significant colonic lesion detection. Ambulatory patients with gastrointestinal symptoms referred consecutively for colonoscopy from primary and secondary healthcare, underwent a quantitative FIT before undergoing a complete colonoscopy. Patients without CRC were divided into two groups (positive and negative FIT) using the threshold of 10 µg Hb/g of faeces and data from follow-up were retrieved from electronic medical records of the public hospitals involved in the research. We determined the cumulative risk of GIC, CRC and upper GIC. Hazard rate (HR) was calculated adjusted by age, sex and presence of significant colonic lesion. RESULTS: We included 2709 patients without CRC and a complete baseline colonoscopy, 730 (26.9%) with FIT ≥ 10 µgr Hb/gr. During a mean time of 45.5 ± 20.0 mo, a GIC was detected in 57 (2.1%) patients: An upper GIC in 35 (1.3%) and a CRC in 14 (0.5%). Thirty-six patients (1.3%) died due to GIC: 22 (0.8%) due to an upper GIC and 9 (0.3%) due to CRC. FIT-positive subjects showed a higher CRC risk (HR 3.8, 95%CI: 1.2-11.9) with no differences in GIC (HR 1.5, 95%CI: 0.8-2.7) or upper GIC risk (HR 1.0, 95%CI: 0.5-2.2). Patients with a positive FIT had only an increased risk of CRC-related death (HR 10.8, 95%CI: 2.1-57.1) and GIC-related death (HR 2.2, 95%CI: 1.1-4.3), with no differences in upper GIC-related death (HR 1.4, 95%CI: 0.6-3.3). An upper GIC was detected in 22 (0.8%) patients during the first year. Two variables were independently associated: anaemia (OR 5.6, 95%CI: 2.2-13.9) and age ≥ 70 years (OR 2.7, 95%CI: 1.1-7.0). CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients without CRC have a moderate risk increase in upper GIC, regardless of the FIT result. Patients with a positive FIT have an increased risk of post-colonoscopy CRC.

Effect of aspirin on the diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test for colorectal advanced neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin (ASA) is a drug that can cause gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most prevalent type of cancer in Western countries. We assessed the effect of aspirin on the diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC and/or advanced neoplasia (AN) in patients undergoing colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre observational study of diagnostic tests that included patients with gastrointestinal symptoms undergoing colonoscopy between March 2012 and 2014 (the COLONPREDICT study). Symptoms were assessed and a FIT and blood tests assessing haemoglobin and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were performed. RESULTS: The study included 3052 patients: A total of 2567 did not take aspirin (non-user group) and 485 (16%) took aspirin (user group). Continuous treatment with ASA did not change the AUC (0.88, 0.82; p = 0.06), sensitivity (92%, 88%; p = 0.5) or specificity (71%, 67%; p = 0.2) of the FIT for CRC detection. Similarly, we found no differences in the AUC (0.81, 0.79; p = 0.6), sensitivity (74%, 75.5%; p = 0.3) or specificity (76%, 73.6%; p = 0.3) for AN detection. Patients with an aspirin use of ≥ 300 mg/day had a lower prevalence of AN and the sensitivity, specificity and AUC for AN for these patients were 54%, 68% and 0.66, significantly lower than for the non-user group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin does not modify the diagnostic accuracy of FIT for CRC and/or AN in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Aspirin use of ≥ 300 mg/day decreases the accuracy of the test.

The fecal hemoglobin concentration, age and sex test score: Development and external validation of a simple prediction tool for colorectal cancer detection in symptomatic patients.

Prediction models for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection in symptomatic patients, based on easily obtainable variables such as fecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), age and sex, may simplify CRC diagnosis. We developed, and then externally validated, a multivariable prediction model, the FAST Score, with data from five diagnostic test accuracy studies that evaluated quantitative fecal immunochemical tests in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy. The diagnostic accuracy of the Score in derivation and validation cohorts was compared statistically with the area under the curve (AUC) and the Chi-square test. 1,572 and 3,976 patients were examined in these cohorts, respectively. For CRC, the odds ratio (OR) of the variables included in the Score were: age (years): 1.03 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.02-1.05), male sex: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1-2.3) and f-Hb (0-<20 µg Hb/g feces): 2.0 (95% CI: 0.7-5.5), (20-<200 µg Hb/g): 16.8 (95% CI: 6.6-42.0), ≥200 µg Hb/g: 65.7 (95% CI: 26.3-164.1). The AUC for CRC detection was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90) in the derivation and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-093; p = 0.005) in the validation cohort. At the two Score thresholds with 90% (4.50) and 99% (2.12) sensitivity for CRC, the Score had equivalent sensitivity, although the specificity was higher in the validation cohort (p < 0.001). Accordingly, the validation cohort was divided into three groups: high (21.4% of the cohort, positive predictive value-PPV: 21.7%), intermediate (59.8%, PPV: 0.9%) and low (18.8%, PPV: 0.0%) risk for CRC. The FAST Score is an easy to calculate prediction tool, highly accurate for CRC detection in symptomatic patients.

Development and external validation of a faecal immunochemical test-based prediction model for colorectal cancer detection in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection in symptomatic patients based on available biomarkers may improve CRC diagnosis. Our aim was to develop, compare with the NICE referral criteria and externally validate a CRC prediction model, COLONPREDICT, based on clinical and laboratory variables. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study included consecutive patients with gastrointestinal symptoms referred for colonoscopy between March 2012 and September 2013 in a derivation cohort and between March 2014 and March 2015 in a validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, we assessed symptoms and the NICE referral criteria, and determined levels of faecal haemoglobin and calprotectin, blood haemoglobin, and serum carcinoembryonic antigen before performing an anorectal examination and a colonoscopy. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to develop the model with diagnostic accuracy with CRC detection as the main outcome. RESULTS: We included 1572 patients in the derivation cohort and 1481 in the validation cohorts, with a 13.6 % and 9.1 % CRC prevalence respectively. The final prediction model included 11 variables: age (years) (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.06), male gender (OR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.5-3.4), faecal haemoglobin ≥20 µg/g (OR 17.0, 95 % CI 10.0-28.6), blood haemoglobin <10 g/dL (OR 4.8, 95 % CI 2.2-10.3), blood haemoglobin 10-12 g/dL (OR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.1-3.0), carcinoembryonic antigen ≥3 ng/mL (OR 4.5, 95 % CI 3.0-6.8), acetylsalicylic acid treatment (OR 0.4, 95 % CI 0.2-0.7), previous colonoscopy (OR 0.1, 95 % CI 0.06-0.2), rectal mass (OR 14.8, 95 % CI 5.3-41.0), benign anorectal lesion (OR 0.3, 95 % CI 0.2-0.4), rectal bleeding (OR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.4-3.4) and change in bowel habit (OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1-2.5). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.92 (95 % CI 0.91-0.94), higher than the NICE referral criteria (AUC 0.59, 95 % CI 0.55-0.63; p < 0.001). On the basis of the thresholds with 90 % (5.6) and 99 % (3.5) sensitivity, we divided the derivation cohort into three risk groups for CRC detection: high (30.9 % of the cohort, positive predictive value [PPV] 40.7 %, 95 % CI 36.7-45.9 %), intermediate (29.5 %, PPV 4.4 %, 95 % CI 2.8-6.8 %) and low (39.5 %, PPV 0.2 %, 95 % CI 0.0-1.1 %). The discriminatory ability was equivalent in the validation cohort (AUC 0.92, 95 % CI 0.90-0.94; p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: COLONPREDICT is a highly accurate prediction model for CRC detection.