Evaluating the Potential of Polygenic Risk Score to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer has high incidence and associated mortality worldwide. Screening programs are recommended for men and women over 50. Intermediate screens such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) select patients for colonoscopy with suboptimal sensitivity. Additional biomarkers could improve the current scenario. METHODS: We included 2,893 individuals with a positive FIT test. They were classified as cases when a high-risk lesion for colorectal cancer was detected after colonoscopy, whereas the control group comprised individuals with low-risk or no lesions. 65 colorectal cancer risk genetic variants were genotyped. Polygenic risk score (PRS) and additive models for risk prediction incorporating sex, age, FIT value, and PRS were generated. RESULTS: Risk score was higher in cases compared with controls [per allele OR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.06; P < 0.0001]. A 2-fold increase in colorectal cancer risk was observed for subjects in the highest decile of risk alleles (≥65), compared with those in the first decile (≤54; OR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.59-3.12; P < 0.0001). The model combining sex, age, FIT value, and PRS reached the highest accuracy for identifying patients with a high-risk lesion [cross-validated area under the ROC curve (AUROC): 0.64; 95% CI, 0.62-0.66]. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first investigation analyzing PRS in a two-step colorectal cancer screening program. PRS could improve current colorectal cancer screening, most likely for higher at-risk subgroups. However, its capacity is limited to predict colorectal cancer risk status and should be complemented by additional biomarkers. IMPACT: PRS has capacity for risk stratification of colorectal cancer suggesting its potential for optimizing screening strategies alongside with other biomarkers.

Prevalence of missed lesions in patients with inadequate bowel preparation through a very early repeat colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: When bowel preparation (BP) is inadequate, international guidelines recommend repeating the colonoscopy within 1 year to avoid missing clinically relevant lesions. We aimed to determine the rate of missed lesions in patients with inadequate BP through a very early repeat colonoscopy with adequate BP. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was conducted using data collected from a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with inadequate BP and then repeat colonoscopy. Inadequate BP was defined as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score <2 points in any segment. We included patients with any indication for colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) were calculated for index and repeat colonoscopies. RESULTS: Of the 651 patients with inadequate BP from the original trial, 413 (63.4%) achieved adequate BP on repeat colonoscopy. The median interval between index and repeat colonoscopies was 28 days. On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.5-50.1%), the AADR was 10.9% (95% CI 8.1-14.3%), and the SPDR was 14.3% (95% CI 10.9-17.7%). Cancer was discovered in four patients (1%; 95% CI 0.2-2.5%). A total of 60.2% of all advanced adenoma (AA) were discovered on repeat colonoscopy. A colon segment scored BBPS = 0 had most AA (66.1%) and all four cancers. CONCLUSION: Patients with inadequate BP present a high rate of AAs on repeat colonoscopy. When a colonoscopy has a colon segment score BBPS = 0, we recommend repeating the colonoscopy as soon as possible.

Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The most important predictor of unsuccessful bowel preparation is previous failure. For those patients with previous failure, we hypothesized that a nurse-led educational intervention by telephone shortly before the colonoscopy appointment could improve cleansing efficacy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive outpatients with previous inadequate bowel preparation were enrolled. Both groups received the same standard bowel preparation protocol. The intervention group also received reinforced education by telephone within 48 hours before the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was effective bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all randomized patients. Per-protocol analysis included patients who could be contacted by telephone and the control cases. RESULTS: 657 participants were recruited by 11 Spanish hospitals. In the ITT analysis, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the rate of successful bowel preparation (77.3 % vs. 72 %; P = 0.12). In the intervention group, 267 patients (82.9 %) were contacted by telephone. Per-protocol analysis revealed significantly improved bowel preparation in the intervention group (83.5 % vs. 72.0 %; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among all patients with previous inadequate bowel preparation, nurse-led telephone education did not result in a significant improvement in bowel cleansing. However, in the 83 % of patients who could be contacted, bowel preparation was substantially improved. Phone education may therefore be a useful tool for improving the quality of bowel preparation in those cases.