Initial Stage of Disease Similar for White and Black Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer at a Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are more likely to present with advanced-stage disease than their Non-Hispanic White (NHW) counterparts. To further elucidate whether differences in tumor biology or disparities in access to care may be responsible, we examined the association between race/ethnicity and initial stage of disease, time to diagnosis, and tumor characteristics among NHW and NHB patients with EOCRC cared for in a safety-net health care setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of NHW and NHB patients diagnosed with primary EOCRC who received care at Boston Medical Center between January 2000 and May 2020. We compared demographics, risk factors, presenting signs/symptoms, time to diagnosis, health care utilization, and tumor characteristics (stage, grade, location, and mutational status). RESULTS: We identified 103 patients (mean age 41.5±7.2 y, 53.4% men), including 40 NHWs and 63 NHBs, with EOCRC. NHB and NHW patients were similar with respect to demographics, presenting signs/symptoms, and risk factor distribution. There were also no significant differences between NHWs and NHBs with respect to the advanced stage of disease at presentation (45.0% vs. 42.9%, P =0.83), the median time to diagnosis [152 d (IQR, 40 to 341) vs. 160 d (IQR, 61 to 312), P =0.79] or tumor characteristics, except for a predilection for proximal disease among NHBs (30.2% vs. 15.0%). CONCLUSIONS: NHB patients were no more likely than NHW patients to present with advanced-stage disease, aggressive tumor histology, or experience delays in diagnosis within a safety-net health care system.

Estimate of Increase in Colorectal Cancer Diagnoses with Expansion of Fecal Immunochemical Testing in an Urban Safety-Net Population.

BACKGROUND: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is less effective in detecting advanced adenomas (AA) than colonoscopy. Increase in FIT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening may lead to an increased number of undetected AAs which may develop into future CRCs. AIM: We determined the potential impact of FIT expansion on missed AAs and future CRC diagnoses in an urban, tertiary-care, safety-net hospital. METHODS: CRC and AA diagnoses were identified in patients undergoing colonoscopy for average-risk CRC screening or positive FIT between 2017 and 2019 at Boston Medical Center. Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the frequency of AAs per year by age group using data from 2017 to 2019, assuming average outpatient volume and proportion of screening colonoscopies. Total number of patients who received FIT was extrapolated from those who underwent colonoscopy for positive FIT. We estimated AAs per year if 'one-time' FIT was used for screening in 75% and 100% of the population and subtracted this from the estimated AAs per year under the Poisson model to determine missed AAs. We used previously described, age and gender specific estimates of the annual progression of AA to CRC. RESULTS: The estimated number of CRCs detected per year is 4.6/1785 males and 4.6/2086 females screened. With 75% FIT expansion, we estimate an additional 3.5 (95% CI 1.3, 9.5) and 2.2 (95% CI 0.64, 7.6) CRCs; with 100% FIT expansion, we estimate an additional 7.4 (95% CI 3.7, 14.9) and 4.2 (95% CI 1.7, 10.5) CRCs, in 5 years, in males and females, respectively. CONCLUSION: Expansion of FIT may substantially increase CRC incidence.

Prevalence and Predictors of Young-Onset Colorectal Neoplasia: Insights From a Nationally Representative Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A disturbing increase in early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) has prompted recent guidelines to recommend lowering the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening starting age from 50 to 45 years old for average-risk individuals. Little is known about the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in individuals between 45 and 49 years old, or even younger, in the United States. We analyzed a large, nationally representative data set of almost 3 million outpatient colonoscopies to determine the prevalence of, and risk factors for, colorectal neoplasia among patients aged 18 to 54. METHODS: Findings from high-quality colonoscopies were analyzed from AMSURG ambulatory endoscopy centers (ASCs) that report their results in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) Registry. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for EOCRC. RESULTS: Increasing age, male sex, White race, family history of CRC, and examinations for bleeding or screening were all associated with higher odds of advanced premalignant lesions (APLs) and CRC. Among patients aged 45 to 49, 32% had any neoplasia, 7.5% had APLs, and 0.58% had CRC. Rates were almost as high in those aged 40 to 44. Family history of CRC portended neoplasia rates 5 years earlier. Rates of APLs were higher in American Indian/Alaskan Natives, but lower among Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, compared with White counterparts. The prevalence of any neoplasia and APL gradually increased between 2014 and 2019, in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide support for lowering the screening age to 45 for all average-risk individuals. Early messaging to patients and providers in the years leading up to age 45 is warranted, especially in those with a family history of CRC.

Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The risks of missed findings after inadequate bowel preparation are not fully characterized in a diverse cohort. We aimed to evaluate the likelihood of missed polyps after an inadequate preparation as assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). METHODS: In this observational study of prospectively collected data within a large, national, endoscopic consortium, we identified patients aged 50 to 75 years who underwent average-risk screening colonoscopy (C1) followed by a second colonoscopy for any indication within 3 years (C2). We determined the polyp detection rates (PDRs) and advanced PDRs during C2 stratified by C1 BBPS scores. RESULTS: Among segment pairs without polyps at C1 (N = 601), those with inadequate C1 BBPS segment scores had a higher PDR at C2 (10%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation at C1 (5%; P = .04). Among segment pairs with polyps at C1 (N = 154), segments with inadequate bowel preparation scores at C1 had higher advanced PDRs at C2 (20%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation scores at C1 (4%; P = .03). In multivariable analysis, the presence of advanced polyps at C1 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.1-10.8) but not inadequate BBPS scores at C1 (adjusted OR 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.1) was associated with a significantly increased risk of advanced polyps at C2. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate BBPS segment scores generally are associated with higher rates of polyps and advanced polyps at subsequent colonoscopy within a short timeframe. The presence of advanced polyps as well as inadequate BBPS segment scores can inform the risk of missed polyps and help triage which patients warrant a timely repeat colonoscopy.

Patient Navigation for Colonoscopy Completion: Results of an RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. Although screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, screening rates among U.S. adults remain less than optimal, especially among disadvantaged populations. This study examined the efficacy of patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening. STUDY DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 843 low-income adults, primarily Hispanic and non-Hispanic blacks, aged 50-75 years referred for colonoscopy at Boston Medical Center were randomized into the intervention (n=429) or control (n=427) groups. Participants were enrolled between September 2012 and December 2014, with analysis following through 2015. INTERVENTION: Two bilingual lay navigators provided individualized education and support to reduce patient barriers and facilitate colonoscopy completion. The intervention was delivered largely by telephone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Colonoscopy completion within 6 months of study enrollment. RESULTS: Colonoscopy completion was significantly higher for navigated patients (61.1%) than control group patients receiving usual care (53.2%, p=0.021). Based on regression analysis, the odds of completing a colonoscopy for navigated patients was one and a half times greater than for controls (95% CI=1.12, 2.03, p=0.007). There were no differences between navigated and control groups in regard to adequacy of bowel preparation (95.3% vs 97.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Navigation significantly improved colonoscopy screening completion among a racially diverse, low-income population. Results contribute to mounting evidence demonstrating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colorectal cancer screening. Screening can be further enhanced when navigation is combined with other evidence-based practices implemented in healthcare systems and the community.

Physician Perceptions of Surveillance Follow-up Colonoscopy in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist regarding when to stop surveillance colonoscopy among older adults with a history of adenomatous colorectal polyps. Our goal was to understand decision making around surveillance colonoscopy among primary care providers (PCPs) and gastroenterologists. METHODS: We designed a 15-item survey for PCPs and gastroenterologists that evaluated factors important in decision making about surveillance colonoscopy in older adults. RESULTS: In October 2015, 88 PCPs and 30 gastroenterologists completed the survey. Life expectancy (40%), gastroenterology recommendation (8%), and patient preference (12%) were the most important factors for PCPs. Findings on prior colonoscopy were most important among gastroenterologists. Regardless of specialty, respondents felt that the existing literature on surveillance colonoscopy in older adults is inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: More data surrounding the benefits and risk of surveillance colonoscopy are needed to inform when to stop surveillance colonoscopy among older adults with a positive screening history.

National Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Obese Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is a major risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly among men. The purpose of this study was to characterize the prevalence of guideline-adherent CRC screening among obese adults using nationally representative data, assess trends in screening strategies, and identify obesity-specific screening barriers. METHODS: Data from 8,550 respondents aged 50-75 years in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey, representing >70 million adults, were analyzed in 2015 using multivariable logistic regression. Prevalence of guideline-adherent CRC screening, endoscopic versus fecal occult blood test screening, and reasons for non-adherence were compared across BMI categories. RESULTS: Obese class III men (BMI ≥40), compared with normal-weight men, were significantly less likely to be adherent to screening guidelines (38.7% vs 55.8%, AOR=0.35, 95% CI=0.17, 0.75); less likely to have used an endoscopic test (36.7% vs 53.0%, AOR=0.37, 95% CI=0.18, 0.79); and had a trend toward lower fecal occult blood test use (4.2% vs 8.9%, AOR=0.42, 95% CI=0.14, 1.27). Among women, odds of guideline adherence and use of different screening modalities were similar across all BMI categories. Reasons for non-adherence differed by gender and BMI; lacking a physician screening recommendation differed significantly among men (29.7% obese class III vs 15.4% non-obese, p=0.04), and pain/embarrassment differed significantly among women (11.6% obese class III vs 2.6% non-obese, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Despite elevated risk, severely obese men were significantly under-screened for CRC. Addressing the unique screening barriers of obese adults may promote screening uptake and lessen disparities among the vulnerable populations most affected by obesity.

Refining the Patient Navigation Role in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Results From an Intervention Study.

BACKGROUND: Oncology patient navigators help individuals overcome barriers to increase access to cancer screening, diagnosis, and timely treatment. This study, part of a randomized intervention trial investigating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colonoscopy completion, examined navigators' activities to ameliorate barriers to colonoscopy screening in a medically disadvantaged population. METHODS: This study was conducted from 2012 through 2014 at Boston Medical Center. We analyzed navigator service delivery and survey data collected on 420 participants who were navigated for colonoscopy screening after randomization to this intervention. Key variables under investigation included barriers to colonoscopy, activities navigators undertook to reduce barriers, time navigators spent on each activity and per contact, and patient satisfaction with navigation services. Descriptive analysis assessed how navigators spent their time and examined what aspects of patient navigation were most valued by patients. RESULTS: Navigators spent the most time assessing patient barriers/needs; facilitating appointment scheduling; reminding patients of appointments; educating patients about colorectal cancer, the importance of screening, and the colonoscopy preparation and procedures; and arranging transportation. Navigators spent an average of 44 minutes per patient. Patients valued the navigators, especially for providing emotional/peer support and explaining screening procedures and bowel preparation clearly. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings help clarify the role of the navigator in colonoscopy screening within a medically disadvantaged community. These findings may help further refine the navigator role in cancer screening and treatment programs as facilities strive to effectively and efficiently integrate navigation into their services.

Predictors of Adherence to Post-Polypectomy Surveillance Colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of adherence with surveillance colonoscopy at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: We evaluated average-risk patients aged 50-75 with adenomas diagnosed at screening colonoscopy between 1/1/05-12/31/07. The primary outcome was on-time follow-up defined as attendance at surveillance colonoscopy within 5.5 years of screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among 881 patients, of whom 38% were English-speaking non-Hispanic Blacks, 38.3% attended on-time surveillance colonoscopy. In unadjusted analyses, ≥3 PCP visits after baseline colonoscopy (OR 3.6 [2.5-5.0]), "adenoma" on the EMR problem list (OR 2.2 [1.6-2.9]), and Charlson Index ≥1 (OR 1.4 [1.0-1.8]) were associated with adherence. "Adenoma" on the EMR problem list remained significant in multivariable analyses (aOR 1.8 [1.3-2.5]). A significant interaction was observed between ethnicity/language and PCP visits (p=.003). CONCLUSION: Many adenoma-bearing patients fail to attend surveillance colonoscopy in a safety-net setting. Adding "adenomas" to the EMR problem list improved attendance, suggesting that system-level interventions can increase adherence.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review.

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own. PURPOSE: To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction. RESULTS: Although providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using a Multitarget Stool DNA Test: Modeling the Effect of the Intertest Interval on Clinical Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: A multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test was recently approved for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for men and women, aged ≥ 50 years, at average risk of CRC. The guidelines currently recommend a 3-year interval for mt-sDNA testing in the absence of empirical data. We used clinical effectiveness modeling to project decreases in CRC incidence and related mortality associated with mt-sDNA screening to help inform interval setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Archimedes model (Archimedes Inc., San Francisco, CA) was used to conduct a 5-arm, virtual, clinical screening study of a population of 200,000 virtual individuals to compare the clinical effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals compared with colonoscopy at 10-year intervals and no screening for a 30-year period. The study endpoints were the decrease in CRC incidence and related mortality of each strategy versus no screening. Cost-effectiveness ratios (US dollars per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of mt-sDNA intervals were calculated versus no screening. RESULTS: Compared with 10-year colonoscopy, annual mt-sDNA testing produced similar reductions in CRC incidence (65% vs. 63%) and related mortality (73% vs. 72%). mt-sDNA testing at 3-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 57% and CRC mortality by 67%, and mt-sDNA testing at 5-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 52% and CRC mortality by 62%. At an average price of $600 per test, the annual, 3-year, and 5-year mt-sDNA screening costs would be $20,178, $11,313, and $7388 per QALY, respectively, compared with no screening. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that screening every 3 years using a multitarget mt-sDNA test provides reasonable performance at acceptable cost.

A Risk Prediction Index for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer screening. Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) might facilitate more effective shared decision making when selecting an appropriate screening option. Our objective was to develop and validate a clinical index for estimating the probability of ACN at screening colonoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3,543 asymptomatic, mostly average-risk patients 50-79 years of age undergoing screening colonoscopy at two urban safety net hospitals. Predictors of ACN were identified using multiple logistic regression. Model performance was internally validated using bootstrapping methods. RESULTS: The final index consisted of five independent predictors of risk (age, smoking, alcohol intake, height, and a combined sex/race/ethnicity variable). Smoking was the strongest predictor (net reclassification improvement (NRI), 8.4%) and height the weakest (NRI, 1.5%). Using a simplified weighted scoring system based on 0.5 increments of the adjusted odds ratio, the risk of ACN ranged from 3.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-3.9) for the low-risk group (score ≤2) to 8.6% (95% CI, 7.4-9.7) for the intermediate/high-risk group (score 3-11). The model had moderate to good overall discrimination (C-statistic, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) and good calibration (P=0.73-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: A simple 5-item risk index based on readily available clinical data accurately stratifies average-risk patients into low- and intermediate/high-risk categories for ACN at screening colonoscopy. Uptake into clinical practice could facilitate more effective shared decision-making for CRC screening, particularly in situations where patient and provider test preferences differ.

Good is better than excellent: bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rates.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel cleansing is associated with missed lesions, yet whether polyp and adenoma detection rates (PDR, ADR) increase at the highest levels of bowel cleanliness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between bowel preparation quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and PDR and ADR among colonoscopies with adequate preparation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Boston Medical Center (BMC) and the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI). PATIENTS: Average-risk ambulatory patients attending screening colonoscopy with adequate bowel preparation defined as BBPS score ≥6. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: PDR and ADR stratified by BBPS score. RESULTS: Among the 3713 colonoscopies at BMC performed by 19 endoscopists, the PDR, ADR, and advanced ADR were 49.8%, 37.7%, and 6.0%, respectively. Among the 5532 colonoscopies in CORI performed by 85 endoscopists at 41 different sites, the PDR was 44.5%, and the PDR for polyps >9 mm (surrogate for advanced ADR) was 6.2%. The PDR associated with total BBPS scores of 6, 7, and 8 were higher than those associated with a BBPS score of 9 at BMC (BBPS 6, 51%; BBPS 7, 53%; BBPS 8, 52% vs BBPS 9, 46%; P = .002) and CORI (BBPS 6, 51%; BBPS 7, 48%; BBPS 8, 45% vs BBPS 9, 40%; P < .0001). This trend persisted after we adjusted for age, sex, and race and/or ethnicity and was observed for ADR and advanced ADR. PDR was higher among good compared with excellent preparations at BMC (odds ratio [OR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.5) and CORI (OR 4.7; 95% CI, 3.1-7.1). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: The PDR and ADR decreased at the highest levels of bowel cleanliness. Endoscopists finding a pristine bowel preparation should avoid a sense of overconfidence for polyp detection during the inspection phase of screening colonoscopy and still perform a careful evaluation for polyps. Furthermore, endoscopists expending additional effort to maximize cleansing of the bowel should never sacrifice on their inspection technique or inspection time.

Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) related to test preference has been advocated as a potentially effective strategy for increasing adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet primary care providers (PCPs) are often reluctant to comply with patient preferences if they differ from their own. Risk stratification advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) provides a rational strategy for reconciling these differences. OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of risk stratification in PCP decision making related to test preference for average-risk patients and receptivity to use of an electronic risk assessment tool for ACN to facilitate SDM. DESIGN: Mixed methods, including qualitative key informant interviews and a cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs at an urban, academic safety-net institution. MAIN MEASURES: Screening preferences, factors influencing patient recommendations and receptivity to use of a risk stratification tool. KEY RESULTS: Nine PCPs participated in interviews and 57 completed the survey. Despite an overwhelming preference for colonoscopy by 95% of respondents, patient risk (67%) and patient preferences (63%) were more influential in their decision making than patient comorbidities (31%; P < 0.001). Age was the single most influential risk factor (excluding family history), with <20% of respondents choosing factors other than age. Most respondents reported that they would be likely to use a risk stratification tool in their practice either 'often' (43%) or sometimes (53%). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification was perceived to be important in clinical decision making, yet few providers considered risk factors other than age for average-risk patients. Providers were receptive to the use of a risk assessment tool for ACN when recommending an appropriate screening test for select patients.

Epidemiology of goblet cell and microvesicular hyperplastic polyps.

OBJECTIVES: Serrated polyps compromise both typical hyperplastic polyps as well as sessile serrated adenomas and dysplastic serrated polyps. Hyperplastic polyps exhibit two histological patterns: microvesicular hyperplastic polyps (MVHPs) and goblet cell hyperplastic polyps (GCHPs). MVHPs and GCHPs differ in their molecular signature. MVHPs have been frequently found to have the BRAF(V600E) mutation as well as aberrant methylation. In contrast, GCHPs have been associated with the KRAS mutation (KRAS-mut), which are infrequently seen in dysplastic serrated sessile adenomas. The particular risk factors that are associated with development of the types of hyperplastic polyps have not been previously studied. The purpose of this study is to characterize the associations between particular risk factors and the development of goblet cell or microvesicular hyperplastic polyps. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3,543 asymptomatic, mostly average risk patients 50 and 79 years of age undergoing open-access screening colonoscopy between March 2005 and January 2012. Each patient was given a survey regarding 25 reputed risk factors for colorectal neoplasia and the responses were correlated with findings at colonoscopy. Associations between putative risk factors for colorectal neoplasia and MVHPs and GSHPs were examined using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: MVHPS and GCHPs were identified in 5.3% and 8.7% of patients, respectively. The results of the statistical analysis indicate that a history of smoking greater than 20 years is associated with an increased risk of MVHPs (P<0.005) and GCHPs (P<0.005). An elevated BMI >30 kg/m(2) was also associated with the presence of MVHP at colonoscopy (P<0.005). Blacks and Asians appear to be protected from the development of MVHPs. In contrast, there was a positive association with the presence of GCHP at colonoscopy in blacks. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the development of the distinct histological types of hyperplastic polyps are associated with distinct modifiable and non-modifiable lifestyle factors.