Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff.

One goal of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to prevent CRC incidence by removing precancerous colonic polyps, which are detected in up to 50% of screening examinations. Yet, the lifetime risk of CRC is 3.9%-4.3%, so it is clear that most of these individuals with polyps would not develop CRC in their lifetime. It is, therefore, a challenge to determine which individuals with polyps will benefit from follow-up, and at what intervals. There is some evidence that individuals with advanced polyps, based on size and histology, benefit from intensive surveillance. However, a large proportion of individuals will have small polyps without advanced histologic features (ie, "nonadvanced"), where the benefits of surveillance are uncertain and controversial. Demand for surveillance will further increase as more polyps are detected due to increased screening uptake, recent United States recommendations to expand screening to younger individuals, and emergence of polyp detection technology. We review the current understanding and clinical implications of the natural history, biology, and outcomes associated with various categories of colon polyps based on size, histology, and number. Our aims are to highlight key knowledge gaps, specifically focusing on certain categories of polyps that may not be associated with future CRC risk, and to provide insights to inform research priorities and potential management strategies. Optimization of CRC prevention programs based on updated knowledge about the future risks associated with various colon polyps is essential to ensure cost-effective screening and surveillance, wise use of resources, and inform efforts to personalize recommendations.

Colorectal Cancer Polygenic Risk Score Is Associated With Screening Colonoscopy Findings but Not Follow-Up Outcomes.

Background and Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) polygenic risk scores (PRS) may help personalize CRC prevention strategies. We investigated whether an existing PRS was associated with advanced neoplasia (AN) in a population undergoing screening and follow-up colonoscopy. Methods: We evaluated 10-year outcomes in the Cooperative Studies Program #380 screening colonoscopy cohort, which includes a biorepository of selected individuals with baseline AN (defined as CRC or adenoma ≥10 mm or villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia) and matched individuals without AN. A PRS was constructed from 136 prespecified CRC-risk single nucleotide polymorphisms. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the PRS for associations with AN prevalence at baseline screening colonoscopy or incident AN in participants with at least one follow-up colonoscopy. Results: The PRS was associated with AN risk at baseline screening colonoscopy (P = .004). Participants in the lowest PRS quintile had more than a 70% decreased risk of AN at baseline (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.58; P < .001) compared to participants with a PRS in the middle quintile. Using a PRS cut-off of more than the first quintile to indicate need for colonoscopy as primary screening, the sensitivity for detecting AN at baseline is 91.8%. We did not observe a relationship between the PRS and incident AN during follow-up (P = .28). Conclusion: A PRS could identify individuals at low risk for prevalent AN. Ongoing work will determine whether this PRS can identify a subset of individuals at sufficiently low risk who could safely delay or be reassured about noninvasive screening. Otherwise, more research is needed to augment these genetic tools to predict incident AN during long-term follow-up.