CTNND1 is involved in germline predisposition to early-onset gastric cancer by affecting cell-to-cell interactions.

BACKGROUND: CDH1 and CTNNA1 remain as the main genes for hereditary gastric cancer. However, they only explain a small fraction of gastric cancer cases with suspected inherited basis. In this study, we aimed to identify new hereditary genes for early-onset gastric cancer patients (EOGC; < 50 years old). METHODS: After germline exome sequencing in 20 EOGC patients and replication of relevant findings by gene-panel sequencing in an independent cohort of 152 patients, CTNND1 stood out as an interesting candidate gene, since its protein product (p120ctn) directly interacts with E-cadherin. We proceeded with functional characterization by generating two knockout CTNND1 cellular models by gene editing and introducing the detected genetic variants using a lentiviral delivery system. We assessed ß-catenin and E-cadherin levels, cell detachment, as well as E-cadherin localization and cell-to-cell interaction by spheroid modeling. RESULTS: Three CTNND1 germline variants [c.28_29delinsCT, p.(Ala10Leu); c.1105C > T, p.(Pro369Ser); c.1537A > G, p.(Asn513Asp)] were identified in our EOGC cohorts. Cells encoding CTNND1 variants displayed altered E-cadherin levels and intercellular interactions. In addition, the p.(Pro369Ser) variant, located in a key region in the E-cadherin/p120ctn binding domain, showed E-cadherin mislocalization. CONCLUSIONS: Defects in CTNND1 could be involved in germline predisposition to gastric cancer by altering E-cadherin and, consequently, cell-to-cell interactions. In the present study, CTNND1 germline variants explained 2% (3/172) of the cases, although further studies in larger external cohorts are needed.

Predictive Value of Genetic Risk Scores in the Development of Colorectal Adenomas.

INTRODUCTION: Unlike colorectal cancer (CRC), few studies have explored the predictive value of genetic risk scores (GRS) in the development of colorectal adenomas (CRA), either alone or in combination with other demographic and clinical factors. METHODS: In this study, genomic DNA from 613 Spanish Caucasian patients with CRA and 829 polyp-free individuals was genotyped for 88 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with CRC risk using the MassArray™ (Sequenom) platform. After applying a multivariate logistic regression model, five SNPs were selected to calculate the GRS. Regression models adjusted by sex, age, family history of CRC, chronic use of NSAIDs, low-dose ASA, and consumption of tobacco were built in order to study the association between GRS and CRA risk. We evaluated the discriminatory capacity using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The interactions between demographic information and GRS were also analyzed. RESULTS: Significant associations between high GRS values and risk of CRA for analyzed models were observed. In particular, patients with higher GRS values had 2.3-2.6-fold increase in risk of CRA compared to patients with middle values. Combining sex and age with the GRS significantly increased the discriminatory accuracy of the univariate model with GRS alone. The best model achieved an AUC value of 0.665 (95% CI: 0.63-0.69). The GRS showed a different behavior depending on sex and age. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that, besides sex and age, GRS is an important risk factor for development of CRA and may be useful for CRC risk stratification and adaptation of screening programs.

An Enhanced High-Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy Is Not Better Than a Conventional Low-Volume One in Patients at Risk of Poor Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced bowel preparation strategy (EBS) improves colonic cleansing in patients at high risk for inadequate bowel cleansing (HRI). Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial included consecutive HRI patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy between February and October 2019. HRI was considered if patients scored >1.225 according to a previously validated bowel-cleansing predictive score. HRI patients were randomized (1:1) to a low-volume conventional bowel cleansing strategy (CBS) (1-day low residue diet (LRD) plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid) or to an EBS (3-day LRD plus 10 mg oral bisacodyl plus 4 L PEG). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the quality of cleanliness. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. A sample size of 130 patients per group was estimated to reach a 15% difference in favor of EBP. Results: A total of 253 HRI patients were included (mean age 69.8 ± 9.5 years, 51.8% women). No statistically significant differences were found in the BBPS scale between the two groups in the ITT analysis (CBS 76.8% vs. EBS 79.7%, P = 0.58) or PP analysis (CBS 78% vs. EBS 84.3%, P = 0.21), risk difference 2.9% (95% CI-7.26 to 39.16) in the ITT analysis, or risk difference 6.3% (95% CI-3.48 to 16.08) in PP analysis. No differences in preparation tolerance, compliance, adverse effects, or colonoscopy findings were found. Conclusion: EBS is not superior to CBS in hard-to-prepare patients. (EUDRACT: 2017-000787-15, NCT03830489). Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03830489.

Familial Colorectal Cancer and Genetic Susceptibility: Colorectal Risk Variants in First-Degree Relatives of Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological studies estimate that having a first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) increases 2-fold to 3-fold the risk of developing the disease. Because FDRs of CRC patients are more likely to co-inherit CRC risk variants, we aimed to evaluate potential differences in genotype distribution of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to CRC risk between FDRs of patients with nonsyndromic CRC (cases) and individuals with no family history of CRC (controls). METHODS: We designed a case-control study comprising 750 cases and 750 Spanish Caucasian controls matched by sex, age, and histological findings after colonoscopy. Genomic DNA from all participants was genotyped for 88 SNPs associated with CRC risk using the MassArray (Sequenom) platform. RESULTS: Ten of the 88 SNPs analyzed revealed significant associations (P < 0.05) with a family history of CRC in our population. The most robust associations were found for the rs17094983G>A SNP in the long noncoding RNA LINC01500 (odds ratio = 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.88, log-additive model), and the rs11255841T>A SNP in the long noncoding RNA LINC00709 (odds ratio = 2.04; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-3.51, dominant model). Of interest, the observed associations were in the same direction than those reported for CRC risk. DISCUSSION: FDRs of CRC patients show significant differences in genotype distribution of SNPs related to CRC risk as compared to individuals with no family history of CRC. Genotyping of CRC risk variants in FDRs of CRC patients may help to identify subjects at risk that would benefit from stricter surveillance and CRC screening programs.

Predictive factors of clinical response to treatment with anti-TNF agents in ulcerative colitis: what have we learned from our patients?

INTRODUCTION: inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFs) are effective drugs for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, many patients do not respond or lose therapeutic response during follow-up. OBJECTIVES: to analyze the determining factors of clinical response to anti-TNFs in UC. METHODS: a multicenter retrospective study was performed in 79 patients with UC who started treatment with anti-TNFs between 2009 and 2015. The primary endpoint was clinical remission (pMayo index ≤ 1) at 12 months. Furthermore, remission and clinical response (final pMayo score ≤ 3) and corticoids discontinuation were assessed at three, six and 12 months. An analysis was performed to identify variables predictive of clinical response. RESULTS: at 12 months, remission and clinical response were seen in 59.2 % and 77.8 % of patients, respectively. Corticoids could be discontinued in 82.4 % of patients. At 12 months, corticoids discontinuation (< 3 months) (OR 0.06; 95 % CI: 0.01-0.24) and clinical response at six months (OR 0.008; 95 % CI: 0.001-0.053) were independent factors predictive of clinical remission. CONCLUSION: in patients with active UC on anti-TNFs, corticoid discontinuation within three months and clinical response at six months after treatment onset are predictive of clinical disease remission.

Genetic susceptibility in the development of colorectal adenomas according to family history of colorectal cancer.

Our study aimed to evaluate the relevance of genetic susceptibility in the development of colorectal adenomas (CRA) and its relationship with the presence of family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). Genomic DNA from 750 cases (first degree relatives of patients with CRC) and 750 controls (subjects with no family history of CRC) was genotyped for 99 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously associated with CRC/CRA risk by GWAS and candidate gene studies by using the MassArray™ (Sequenom) platform. Cases and controls were matched by gender, age and histological lesion. Eight hundred and fifty-eight patients showed no neoplastic lesions, whereas 288 patients showed low-risk adenomas, and 354 patients presented high-risk adenomas. Two SNPs (rs10505477, rs6983267) in the CASC8 gene were associated with a reduced risk of CRA in controls (log-additive models, OR: 0.67, 95%CI:0.54-0.83, and OR:0.66, 95%CI:0.54-0.84, respectively). Stratified analysis by histological lesion revealed the association of rs10505477 and rs6983267 variants with reduced risk of low- and high-risk adenomas in controls, being this effect stronger in low-risk adenomas (log-additive models, OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.47-0.84 and OR:0.64, 95%CI:0.47-0.86, respectively). Moreover, 2 SNPs (rs10795668, rs11255841) in the noncoding LINC00709 gene were significantly associated with a reduced risk of low-risk adenomas in cases (recessive models, OR:0.22, 95%CI:0.06-0.72, and OR:0.08, 95%CI:0.03-0.61) and controls (dominant models, OR:0.50, 95%CI:0.34-0.75, and OR:0.52, 95%CI:0.35-0.78, respectively). In conclusion, some variants associated with CRC risk (rs10505477, rs6983267, rs10795668 and rs11255841) are also involved in the susceptibility to CRA and specific subtypes. These associations are influenced by the presence of family history of CRC.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation: a validated predictive score.

Background and study aim Inadequate bowel cleansing negatively affects the efficiency of colonoscopy in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to design and validate a predictive model for inadequate bowel cleanliness. Patients and methods The model was built from 667 consecutive outpatients (development cohort) who were prospectively scheduled for colonoscopy between June and September 2014. The validation cohort included 409 outpatients who underwent colonoscopy between October and December 2014. Cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Bowel preparation was administered on the same day as the examination. Results In the development cohort, BBPS was adequate in 541 patients (81.1 %). At multivariate analysis, antidepressants (odds ratio [OR] 4.25, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.91 - 9.47), co-morbidity (OR 3.35, 95 %CI 2.16 - 5.18), constipation (OR 2.09, 95 %CI 1.29 - 3.40), and abdominal/pelvic surgery (OR 1.60, 95 %CI 1.03 - 2.47) were independent predictors for inadequate cleansing. The model built with these variables showed an area under the curve of 0.72 in the development cohort and 0.70 in the validation cohort. A cutoff of 1.225 predicted inadequate bowel preparation with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 60.3 % (95 %CI 51.6 - 68.4), 75.4 % (95 %CI 71.6 - 78.9), 36.4 % (95 %CI 30.1 - 43.1), and 89.1 % (95 %CI 85.9 - 91.6) in the development cohort, and 50.0 % (95 %CI 38.1 - 61.9), 80.0 % (95 %CI 75.3 - 84.2), 35.7 % (95 %CI 26.4 - 45.6), and 87.9 % (95 %CI 83.7 - 91.3) in the validation cohort. Conclusion A simple score may assist the clinician in predicting which patients are at high risk of inadequate bowel cleanliness. This may guide changes in bowel preparation strategy accordingly.

Comparison of Two Intensive Bowel Cleansing Regimens in Patients With Previous Poor Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVES: Inadequate bowel cleansing is a major burden for endoscopy units. The aim of this study was to compare two intensive bowel cleansing regimens in patients with previous colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation. METHODS: Patients with inadequate cleansing at index colonoscopy were randomized to 4-L split-dose polyethylene-glycol (PEG) regimen vs. 2-L split-dose PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) regimen. All individuals underwent a 3-day low-residue diet and received 10 mg of bisacodyl, the day before colonoscopy. Cleansing was considered to be adequate if the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scored ≥2 at each colonic segment. A non-inferiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that colonic cleansing with 2-L PEG+Asc was not inferior to 4-l PEG, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10%. RESULTS: Adequate bowel cleansing was significantly higher in patients assigned to 4-L PEG regimen (n=127) vs. those randomized to 2-L PEG+Asc regimen (n=129) by intention-to-treat analysis (81.1 vs. 67.4%, odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.163-3.689)) and by per-protocol analysis (86.6 vs. 71.7%, OR: 2.55, 95% CI: (1.316-4.922)). The study was terminated for futility after the interim analysis, because the 95% CI of the difference of proportions was 3.13-24.27% in the intention-to-treat analysis and 3.33-26.47% in the per-protocol analysis, confirming the superiority of 4-L PEG preparation. CONCLUSIONS: After 3-day low-residue diet and oral bisacodyl before colonoscopy, colon cleansing with 4-L split-dose PEG was superior to 2-L split-dose PEG+Asc in patients with previous inadequate cleansing. (EUDRACT: 2013-002506-31, NCT02073552).

Risk of Advanced Neoplasia in First-Degree Relatives with Colorectal Cancer: A Large Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: First-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than the general population. For this reason, screening guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 5 or 10 y, starting at the age of 40, depending on whether colorectal cancer in the index-case is diagnosed at <60 or ≥60 y, respectively. However, studies on the risk of neoplastic lesions are inconclusive. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of advanced neoplasia (three or more non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenoma, or invasive cancer) in FDR of patients with colorectal cancer compared to average-risk individuals (i.e., asymptomatic adults 50 to 69 y of age with no family history of colorectal cancer). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This cross-sectional analysis includes data from 8,498 individuals undergoing their first lifetime screening colonoscopy between 2006 and 2012 at six Spanish tertiary hospitals. Of these individuals, 3,015 were defined as asymptomatic FDR of patients with colorectal cancer ("familial-risk group") and 3,038 as asymptomatic with average-risk for colorectal cancer ("average-risk group"). The familial-risk group was stratified as one FDR, with one family member diagnosed with colorectal cancer at ≥60 y (n = 1,884) or at <60 y (n = 831), and as two FDR, with two family members diagnosed with colorectal cancer at any age (n = 300). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used for between-group comparisons after adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, and center). Compared with the average-risk group, advanced neoplasia was significantly more prevalent in individuals having two FDR with colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-2.66, p < 0.001), but not in those having one FDR with colorectal cancer diagnosed at ≥60 y (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.83-1.27, p = 0.77) and <60 y (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.90-1.58, p = 0.20). After the age of 50 y, men developed advanced neoplasia over two times more frequently than women and advanced neoplasia appeared at least ten y earlier. Fewer colonoscopies by 2-fold were required to detect one advanced neoplasia in men than in women. Major limitations of this study were first that although average-risk individuals were consecutively included in a randomized control trial, this was not the case for all individuals in the familial-risk cohort; and second, the difference in age between the average-risk and familial-risk cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals having two FDR with colorectal cancer showed an increased risk of advanced neoplasia compared to those with average-risk for colorectal cancer. Men had over 2-fold higher risk of advanced neoplasia than women, independent of family history. These data suggest that screening colonoscopy guidelines should be revised in the familial-risk population.

Colorectal cancer screening in the familial risk population: Is colonoscopy still the strategy of choice?

First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at high risk of this disease. For this reason, medical organizations and clinical guidelines recommend more intensive screening and surveillance for such first-degree relatives than for the average-risk population. Colonoscopy has been the cornerstone of CRC screening in this setting. Although colonoscopy is the most sensitive technique for the detection of neoplastic lesions (especially non-advanced adenomas), its role is less clear for CRC. In addition, screening colonoscopy has several limitations that may affect the success of a screening campaign, such as poor participant acceptance, the need for skilled endoscopists, participant access to screening colonoscopy, overburdened endoscopy units, potential complications, and procedure-related costs. In addition, recent evidence has cast doubt on the advantage of colonoscopy over other strategies for the detection of advanced neoplastic lesions. Despite being less sensitive in general, other screening methods frequently recommended in the average-risk population may be more acceptable and thus help increase CRC screening uptake. This review discusses recent evidence on the risk of CRC in first-degree relatives, the advantages and disadvantages of each screening technique, participation rates depending on the technique, patient preferences, and barriers to screening.

Plasma matrix metalloproteinase 9 as an early surrogate biomarker of advanced colorectal neoplasia.

INTRODUCTION: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are overexpressed at different stages of colorectal carcinogenesis and could serve as early surrogate biomarkers of colorectal neoplasia. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of plasma MMP2 and MMP9 levels in the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia and their correlation with tissue levels. METHODS: We analysed blood and tissue samples from patients with non-advanced adenomas (n=25), advanced adenomas (n=25), colorectal cancer (n=25) and healthy controls (n=75). Plasma and tissue gelatinase levels were determined by Luminex XMAP technology and gelatin zymography. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to calculate the optimum cut-off for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. RESULTS: Plasma MMP2 levels were similar between groups whatever the type of lesion. Plasma MMP9 levels were significantly higher in patients with neoplastic lesions than in healthy controls (median 292.3ng/ml vs. 139.08ng/ml, P<0.001). MMP9 levels were also higher in colorectal cancer than in non-advanced adenomas (median 314.6ng/ml vs. 274.3ng/ml, P=0.03). There was a significant correlation between plasma and tissue levels of MMP9 (r=0.5, P<0.001). The plasma MMP9 cut-off range with the highest diagnostic accuracy was between 173ng/ml and 204ng/ml (AUC=0.80 [95% CI: 0.72-0.86], P<0.001; sensitivity, 80-86% and specificity, 57-67%). CONCLUSION: Plasma MMP9 could be a surrogate biomarker for the early detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia, although its diagnostic performance could be increased by combination with other biomarkers.

Uptake of Colon Capsule Endoscopy vs Colonoscopy for Screening Relatives of Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The efficacy of screening colonoscopy in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is limited by suboptimal uptake. We compared screening uptake of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) vs colonoscopy in this population. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 329 asymptomatic FDRs of patients with CRC who were randomly assigned to groups examined by CCE (PillCam, second generation; n = 165) or colonoscopy (n = 164) at a tertiary hospital in Spain from July 2012 through December 2013. Crossover was permitted for patients who did not wish to undergo the assigned procedure. Subjects assigned to CCE who had a significant lesion (polyp ≥ 10 mm, >2 polyps of any size, or CRC) were invited to undergo colonoscopy. RESULTS: One hundred twenty subjects in the CCE group and 113 in the colonoscopy group were eligible for inclusion. In the intention-to-screen analysis, uptake was similar between groups (55.8% CCE vs 52.2% colonoscopy; odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.44; P = .57); 57.4% of subjects crossed over from the CCE group, and 30.2% crossed over from the colonoscopy group (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.51-6.41; P = .002). Unwillingness to repeat bowel preparation in the case of a positive result was the main reason that subjects assigned to the CCE group crossed over; fear of colonoscopy was the reason that most patients in this group crossed over. A significant lesion was detected in 14 subjects (11.7%) in the CCE group and 13 subjects (11.5%) in the colonoscopy group (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.45-2.26; P = .96). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, similar numbers of FDRs of patients with CRC assigned to undergo CCE or colonoscopy agreed to participate, but most preferred to undergo colonoscopy. CCE was as effective as colonoscopy in detecting significant lesions; it could be a valid rescue strategy for subjects who reject screening colonoscopy. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01557101.

Equivalency of fecal immunochemical tests and colonoscopy in familial colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy is the recommended screening procedure for first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), but few studies have compared its efficacy for CRC detection with that of other screening strategies. We conducted a controlled randomized trial to compare the efficacy of repeated fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and colonoscopy in detecting advanced neoplasia (advanced adenoma or CRC) in family members of patients with CRC. METHODS: In a prospective study, 1918 first-degree relatives of patients with CRC were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive a single colonoscopy examination or 3 FITs (1/year for 3 years; OC-Sensor; cutoff ≥10 µg hemoglobin/g feces, corresponding to 50 ng hemoglobin/mL buffer). The strategies were considered to be equivalent if the 95% confidence interval of the difference for the detection of advanced neoplasia was ±3%. Follow-up analyses were performed to identify false-negative FIT results and interval CRCs. RESULTS: Of all eligible asymptomatic first-degree relatives, 782 were included in the colonoscopy group and 784 in the FIT group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, advanced neoplasia was detected in 33 (4.2%) and 44 (5.6%) first-degree relatives in the FIT and colonoscopy groups, respectively (odds ratio = 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 0.88-2.26; P = .14). In the per-protocol analysis, 28 first-degree relatives (3.9%) in the FIT group and 43 (5.8%) in the colonoscopy group had advanced neoplasia (odds ratio = 1.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.95-2.56; P = .08). FIT missed 16 of 41 advanced adenomas but no CRCs. The FIT strategy required endoscopic evaluation of 4-fold fewer individuals to detect 1 advanced neoplasia than the colonoscopy strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated FIT screening (1/year for 3 years) detected all CRCs and proved equivalent to colonoscopy in detecting advanced neoplasia in first-degree relatives of patients with CRC. This strategy should be considered for populations where compliance with FITs is higher than with colonoscopy. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01075633 (COLONFAM Study).