Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk. METHODS: Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events. RESULTS: Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up.

Racial Differences in Treatment and Survival among Veterans and Non-Veterans with Stage I NSCLC: An Evaluation of Veterans Affairs and SEER-Medicare Populations.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the preferred treatment for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with radiation reserved for those not receiving surgery. Previous studies have shown lower rates of surgery among Blacks with stage I NSCLC than among Whites. METHODS: Black and White men ages ≥65 years with stage I NSCLC diagnosed between 2001 and 2009 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database and Veterans Affairs (VA) cancer registry. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine associations between race, treatment, and survival. RESULTS: Among the patients in the VA (n = 7,895) and SEER (n = 8,744), the proportion of Blacks was 13% and 7%, respectively. Overall, 16.2% of SEER patients (15.4% of Whites, 26.0% of Blacks) and 24.5% of VA patients received no treatment (23.4% of Whites, 31.4% of Blacks). In both cohorts, Blacks were less likely to receive any treatment compared with Whites [ORadj = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.69 for SEER-Medicare; ORadj = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79 for VA]. Among treated patients, Blacks were less likely than Whites to receive surgery only (ORadj = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70 for SEER-Medicare; ORadj = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86 for VA), but more likely to receive chemotherapy only and radiation only. There were no racial differences in survival. CONCLUSIONS: Among VA and SEER-Medicare patients, Blacks were less likely to get surgical treatment. Blacks and Whites had similar survival outcomes when accounting for treatment. IMPACT: This supports the hypothesis that equal treatment correlates with equal outcomes and emphasizes the need to understand multilevel predictors of lung cancer treatment disparities.

Advanced neoplasia in Veterans at screening colonoscopy using the National Cancer Institute Risk Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: Adapting screening strategy to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk may improve efficiency for all stakeholders however limited tools for such risk stratification exist. Colorectal cancers usually evolve from advanced neoplasms that are present for years. We applied the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CRC Risk Assessment Tool, which calculates future risk of CRC, to determine whether it could be used to predict current advanced neoplasia (AN) in a veteran cohort undergoing a baseline screening colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective assessment of the relationship between future CRC risk predicted by the NCI tool, and the presence of AN at screening colonoscopy. Family, medical, dietary and physical activity histories were collected at the time of screening colonoscopy and used to calculate absolute CRC risk at 5, 10 and 20 years. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 3121 veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy, 94% had complete data available to calculate risk (N = 2934, median age 63 years, 100% men, and 15% minorities). Prevalence of AN at baseline screening colonoscopy was 11 % (N = 313). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 5 years, AN prevalences were 6.54% (95% CI, 4.99, 8.09), 11.26% (95% CI, 9.28-13.24), and 14.21% (95% CI, 12.02-16.40). For tertiles of estimated risk at 10 years, the prevalences were 6.34% (95% CI, 4.81-7.87), 11.25% (95% CI, 9.27-13.23), and 14.42% (95% CI, 12.22-16.62). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 20 years, current AN prevalences were 7.54% (95% CI, 5.75-9.33), 10.53% (95% CI, 8.45-12.61), and 12.44% (95% CI, 10.2-14.68). The area under the curve for predicting current AN was 0.60 (95% CI; 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 5 years, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 10 years and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61, p < 0.0001) at 20 years. CONCLUSION: The NCI tool had modest discriminatory function for estimating the presence of current advanced neoplasia in veterans undergoing a first screening colonoscopy. These findings are comparable to other clinically utilized cancer risk prediction models and may be used to inform the benefit-risk assessment of screening, particularly for patients with competing comorbidities and lower risk, for whom a non-invasive screening approach is preferred.