Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seventeen NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance. DATA SOURCES: Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England. METHODS: Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821. LIMITATIONS: The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients. FUTURE WORK: Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancers develop from polyps, also called adenomas, which are growths on the lining of the bowel. Removal of adenomas, therefore, helps prevent bowel cancer. Adenomas can be detected and removed during colonoscopy, when a thin tube with a camera on one end is used to examine the bowel lining. In the UK, patients with adenomas are divided into three risk groups. Low-risk patients (i.e. those with one or two adenomas that are < 10 mm in size) are thought to be unlikely to develop bowel cancer after adenoma removal and follow-up colonoscopy is not recommended in this group. Intermediate-risk patients (i.e. those with three or four adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or one or two adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy 3 years after adenoma removal. High-risk patients (i.e. those with five or more adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or three or more adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy after 1 year and then usually again after 3 years. The number of follow-up colonoscopies carried out is stretching health-care resources and each procedure carries a small risk of complications for patients. It is possible that too many follow-up colonoscopies are being carried out. This study aimed to determine which patients require follow-up colonoscopies and how many are required to detect adenomas and prevent bowel cancer, while also being resource-efficient, cost-effective and not exposing patients to unnecessary risks. The study used data from 17 hospitals and cancer registries in the UK. In each risk group, one follow-up colonoscopy after adenoma removal was associated with a 40­50% reduction in bowel cancer risk. However, even without any follow-up, bowel cancer risk was no higher in some low- and intermediate-risk patients than in the general population. These patients may not need as many follow-up colonoscopies as recommended. In the case of higher-risk patients, who even after adenoma removal have a higher bowel cancer risk than the general population, follow-up colonoscopies are necessary and cost-effective.

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Longer post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are associated with increased colorectal neoplasia detection at surveillance in some studies. We investigated this association to inform optimal surveillance intervals. METHODS: Patients who underwent colonoscopy and post-polypectomy surveillance at 17 UK hospitals were classified as low/high risk by baseline findings. We compared detection rates of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous/villous, high grade dysplasia), high risk findings (HRFs: ≥ 2 serrated polyps/[adenomas] of which ≥ 1 is ≥ 10 mm or has [high grade] dysplasia; ≥ 5 serrated polyps/adenomas; or ≥ 1 nonpedunculated polyp ≥ 20 mm), or colorectal cancer (CRC) at surveillance colonoscopy by surveillance interval (< 18 months, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years). Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 11 214 patients, 7216 (64 %) were low risk and 3998 (36 %) were high risk. Among low risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 7.8 %, 3.7 %, and 1.1 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma detection increased with increasing surveillance interval, reaching 9.8 % with a 6-year interval (P trend < 0.001). Among high risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 15.3 %, 10.0 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma and CRC detection rates (P trends < 0.001) increased with increasing surveillance interval; RRs (95 % confidence intervals) for CRC were 1.54 (0.68-3.48), 4.44 (1.95-10.08), and 5.80 (2.51-13.40) with 3-, 4-, and 5-year intervals, respectively, versus an interval of < 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Metachronous neoplasia was uncommon among low risk patients, even with long surveillance intervals, supporting recommendations for no surveillance in these patients. For high risk patients, a 3-year surveillance interval would ensure timely CRC detection.

Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for 'high-risk' patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is 'advanced' (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; 'low-risk' patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: Among 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2-90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60). CONCLUSION: These guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening.

Heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence among people recommended 3-yearly surveillance post-polypectomy: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) following adenoma removal. Low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups are defined by baseline adenoma characteristics. We previously examined intermediate-risk patients from hospital data and identified a higher-risk subgroup who benefited from surveillance and a lower-risk subgroup who may not require surveillance. This study explored whether these findings apply in individuals undergoing CRC screening. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST), English CRC screening pilot (ECP), and US Kaiser Permanente CRC prevention program (KPCP). Screening participants (50 - 74 years) classified as intermediate-risk at baseline colonoscopy were included. CRC data were available through 2006 (KPCP) or 2014 (UKFSST, ECP). Lower- and higher-risk subgroups were defined using our previously identified baseline risk factors: higher-risk participants had incomplete colonoscopies, poor bowel preparation, adenomas ≥ 20 mm or with high-grade dysplasia, or proximal polyps. We compared CRC incidence in these subgroups and in the presence vs. absence of surveillance using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 2291 intermediate-risk participants, 45 % were classified as higher risk. Median follow-up was 11.8 years. CRC incidence was higher in the higher-risk than lower-risk subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.07 - 4.06). Surveillance reduced CRC incidence in higher-risk participants (HR 0.35, 95 %CI 0.14 - 0.86) but not statistically significantly so in lower-risk participants (HR 0.41, 95 %CI 0.12 - 1.38). CONCLUSION: As previously demonstrated for hospital patients, screening participants classified as intermediate risk comprised two risk subgroups. Surveillance clearly benefited the higher-risk subgroup.

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance aims to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines define low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, recommending different strategies for each. Evidence supporting the guidelines is limited. We examined CRC incidence and effects of surveillance on incidence among each risk group. DESIGN: Retrospective study of 33 011 patients who underwent colonoscopy with adenoma removal at 17 UK hospitals, mostly (87%) from 2000 to 2010. Patients were followed up through 2016. Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to estimate effects of surveillance on CRC incidence adjusted for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared incidence with that in the general population. RESULTS: After exclusions, 28 972 patients were available for analysis; 14 401 (50%) were classed as low-risk, 11 852 (41%) as intermediate-risk and 2719 (9%) as high-risk. Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, CRC incidence per 100 000 person-years was 140 (95% CI 122 to 162), 221 (195 to 251) and 366 (295 to 453), respectively. CRC incidence was 40%-50% lower with a single surveillance visit than with none: hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (0.29 to 0.82) in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk (SIR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02) and intermediate-risk (1.16, 0.97 to 1.37) patients, but higher among high-risk patients (1.91, 1.39 to 2.56). CONCLUSION: Postpolypectomy surveillance reduces CRC risk. However, even without surveillance, CRC risk in some low-risk and intermediate-risk patients is no higher than in the general population. These patients could be managed by screening rather than surveillance.

Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, patients with one or two adenomas, of which at least one is ≥ 10 mm in size, or three or four small adenomas, are deemed to be at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and referred for surveillance colonoscopy 3 years post polypectomy. However, colonoscopy is costly, can cause discomfort and carries a small risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not annual faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are effective, acceptable and cost saving compared with colonoscopy surveillance for detecting CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study with health psychology assessment and economic evaluation. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 30 January 2012 to 30 December 2013 within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women, aged 60-72 years, deemed to be at intermediate risk of CRC following adenoma removal after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test were invited to participate. Invitees who consented and returned an analysable FIT were included. INTERVENTION: We offered participants quantitative FITs at 1, 2 and 3 years post polypectomy. Participants testing positive with any FIT were referred for colonoscopy and not offered further FITs. Participants testing negative were offered colonoscopy at 3 years post polypectomy. Acceptibility of FIT was assessed using discussion groups, questionnaires and interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 3-year sensitivity of an annual FIT versus colonoscopy at 3 years for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) (CRC and/or AA). Secondary outcomes included participants' surveillance preferences, and the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy surveillance. RESULTS: Of 8008 invitees, 5946 (74.3%) consented and returned a round 1 FIT. FIT uptake in rounds 2 and 3 was 97.2% and 96.9%, respectively. With a threshold of 40 µg of haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (hereafter referred to as µg/g), positivity was 5.8% in round 1, declining to 4.1% in round 3. Over three rounds, 69.2% (18/26) of participants with CRC, 34.3% (152/443) with AAs and 35.6% (165/463) with ACN tested positive at 40 µg/g. Sensitivity for CRC and AAs increased, whereas specificity decreased, with lower thresholds and multiple rounds. At 40 µg/g, sensitivity and specificity of the first FIT for CRC were 30.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The programme sensitivity and specificity of three rounds at 10 µg/g were 84.6% and 70.8%, respectively. Participants' preferred surveillance strategy was 3-yearly colonoscopy plus annual FITs (57.9%), followed by annual FITs with colonoscopy in positive cases (31.5%). FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases was cheaper than 3-yearly colonoscopy (£2,633,382), varying from £485,236 (40 µg/g) to £956,602 (10 µg/g). Over 3 years, FIT surveillance could miss 291 AAs and eight CRCs using a threshold of 40 µg/g, or 189 AAs and four CRCs using a threshold of 10 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Annual low-threshold FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases achieved high sensitivity for CRC and would be cost saving compared with 3-yearly colonoscopy. However, at higher thresholds, this strategy could miss 15-30% of CRCs and 40-70% of AAs. Most participants preferred annual FITs plus 3-yearly colonoscopy. Further research is needed to define a clear role for FITs in surveillance. FUTURE WORK: Evaluate the impact of ACN missed by FITs on quality-adjusted life-years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18040196. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK. MAST Group Ltd provided FIT kits.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services. DESIGN: Intermediate-risk patients (60-72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012-December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance. RESULTS: 74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%-40% of CRCs and 40%-70% of AAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18040196; Results.

Whole-colon investigation vs. flexible sigmoidoscopy for suspected colorectal cancer based on presenting symptoms and signs: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) usually undergo colonoscopy. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) may be preferred if proximal cancer risk is low. We investigated which patients could undergo FS alone. METHODS: Cohort study of 7375 patients (≥55 years) referred with suspected CRC to 21 English hospitals (2004-2007), followed using hospital records and cancer registries. We calculated yields and number of needed whole-colon examinations (NNE) to diagnose one cancer by symptoms/signs and subsite. We considered narrow (haemoglobin <11 g/dL men; <10 g/dL women) and broad (<13 g/dL men; <12 g/dL women) anaemia definitions and iron-deficiency anaemia (IDA). RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven proximal and 429 distal CRCs were diagnosed. A broad anaemia definition identified 80% of proximal cancers; a narrow definition with IDA identified 39%. In patients with broad definition anaemia and/or abdominal mass, proximal cancer yield and NNE were 4.8% (97/2022) and 21. In patients without broad definition anaemia and/or abdominal mass, with rectal bleeding or increased stool frequency (41% of cohort), proximal cancer yield and NNE were 0.4% (13/3031) and 234. CONCLUSION: Most proximal cancers are accompanied by broad definition anaemia. In patients without broad definition anaemia and/or abdominal mass, with rectal bleeding or increased stool frequency, proximal cancer is rare and FS should suffice.

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: The UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies. DESIGN: Retrospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Routine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals (n = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts (n = 2352), followed up using cancer registries. SUBJECTS: Patients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas). PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up. METHODS: The effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost-utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups (n = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance. RESULTS: In the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup (n = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup (n = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain. CONCLUSIONS: A single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence. METHODS: We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649. FINDINGS: 253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6-11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31-0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06-1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29-0·84). INTERPRETATION: Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.

Genetic basis of variation in adenoma multiplicity in ApcMin/+ Mom1S mice.

Apc(Min) mice have provided an example of a locus (Modifier of Min1; Mom1) modifying adenoma numbers in the intestines of inbred strains. Linkage analysis located Mom1 on chromosome 4, and further investigation identified secretory phospholipase A2 (Pla2g2a) as a candidate gene. Because of unknown variation introduced by a single founding male mouse, our Min stock, although Pla2g2a(Mom1-s), was not on a pure C57BL/6J background and exhibited several polymorphic loci, including a region on chromosome 18 distal to Apc. Through selective breeding for homozygosity for distal chromosome 18 markers, six recombinant lines that presented with limited intraline variation in adenoma numbers were established. One line (V) showed a particularly severe phenotype (mean adenoma number +/- SEM, 370 +/- 21) compared with the other lines that recorded significantly lower means (3- to 5-fold; P < 10(-3), t test). Intercrosses between lines I and V showed suppression of the severe phenotype in the N1 generation. In N2 (and subsequent) backcrosses, tumor multiplicity depended on the origins of the WT and Min Apc alleles. Mice carrying both alleles from line V had a severe phenotype; others had mild disease very similar to line I (likelihood ratio statistic > 49.0; likelihood of odds > 10; P < 10(-5)). Frequency of allele loss at Apc was increased significantly in adenomas of mice with more severe disease. We propose that a modifier gene close to Apc or structural variation on chromosome 18 modifies polyp numbers in our mice, possibly by altering the frequency of WT Apc allele loss.

Germline mutations but not somatic changes at the MYH locus contribute to the pathogenesis of unselected colorectal cancers.

MYH-associated polyposis is a recently described, autosomal recessive condition comprising multiple colorectal adenomas and cancer. This disease is caused by germline mutations in the base excision repair (BER) gene MYH. Genes involved in the BER pathway are thus good candidates for involvement in the pathogenesis of sporadic tumors of the large bowel. We have screened a set of 75 sporadic colorectal cancers for mutations in MYH, MTH1, and OGG1. Allelic loss at MYH was also assessed. Selected samples were screened for mutations and allele loss at APC and mutations in p53, K-ras, and beta-catenin. A panel of 35 colorectal cancer cell lines was screened for MYH mRNA and protein expression. One of 75 cancers had bi-allelic germline mutations in MYH and on retrospective analysis of medical records this patient was found to have synchronous multiple small adenomas in addition to carcinoma. No somatic MYH mutations were found and mRNA and protein were expressed in all of our cell lines. There were no clearly pathogenic mutations in MTH1 or OGG1 in any tumor. Bi-allelic germline MYH mutations cause approximately 1 to 3% of unselected colorectal cancers, but appear always to be associated with multiple adenomas. Somatic inactivation of the DNA glycosylases involved in the BER pathway however does not appear to be involved in colorectal tumorigenesis.