Systematic scoping review: Use of the faecal immunochemical test residual buffer to enhance colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an inexpensive and convenient modality to screen for colorectal cancer. However, its one-time sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and cancer precursors is limited. There is growing interest in using the non-haemoglobin contents of FIT residual buffer to enhance colonic neoplasia detection. AIM: To establish from the literature a framework to catalogue candidate biomarkers within FIT residual buffer for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: The search strategy evaluated PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar for publications through 25 October 2023, with search terms including FIT, buffer, OC-sensor, biomarkers, microbiome, microRNA (miR), colon, rectum, screening, neoplasm, and early detection. Studies employing home-based collection samples using quantitative FIT first processed for haemoglobin were included. One author reviewed all articles; a second author completed a 20% full-text audit to ensure adherence to eligibility criteria. RESULTS: A broad search yielded 1669 studies and application of eligibility criteria identified 18 relevant studies. Multiple protein, DNA/RNA, and microbiome biomarkers (notably haptoglobin, miR-16, miR-27a-3p, miR-92a, miR-148a-3p, miR-223, miR-421, let-7b-5p, and Tyzzerella 4) were associated with colorectal neoplasia. Furthermore, studies highlighted the short-term stability of biomarkers for clinical use and long-term stability for research purposes. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review summarises the framework and progress of research on stability of biomarkers in FIT residual buffer and their associations with colorectal neoplasia to guide opportunities for further confirmatory studies to enhance colorectal cancer screening.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening: Maximizing Success by Minimizing Failure.

Implementing fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) through clinic based opportunistic screening or programmatic mailing is not as straightforward as it seems. Liu and colleagues present data for 56,980 individuals who submitted a FIT in a safety net hospital system. In 10.2% (N = 5,819), the test was deemed unsatisfactory. These data demonstrate that there is significant room for improvement in clinical practice regarding colorectal cancer screening with FIT. The high rate of 10% for unsatisfactory FIT tests is higher than the 5% benchmark suggested by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer screening. To maximize FIT success, there needs to be a preoccupation with failure at the system level that results in reducing the number of FIT tests that are rejected. Completing a stool test independently at home is not easy. The medical system needs to help and support individuals in completing the test every step of the way. Suggestions include patient related tips such as labelling and mailing the tests. There are also suggestions for the ordering clinician including administrative tracking to notify clinicians when a FIT has not been performed or is rejected. Papers like this get us focused exactly where we need to be to improve FIT-based screening. See related article by Liu et al., p. 215.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

Diagnosis and Management of Cancer Risk in the Gastrointestinal Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Diagnosis and management of cancer risk in the gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Diagnosis and Management of Cancer Risk in the Gastrointestinal Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This U.S Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Practice Patterns and Predictors of Stopping Colonoscopy in Older Adults With Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Older adults with colorectal polyps undergo frequent surveillance colonoscopy. There is no specific guidance regarding when to stop surveillance. We aimed to characterize endoscopist recommendations regarding surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and identify patient, procedure, and endoscopist characteristics associated with recommendations to stop. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single academic medical center of adults aged ≥75 years who underwent colonoscopy for polyp surveillance or screening during which polyps were found. The primary outcome was a recommendation to stop surveillance. Predictors examined included patient age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, polyp findings, and endoscopist sex and years in practice. Associations were evaluated using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1426 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists, 34.6% contained a recommendation to stop and 52.3% to continue. Older patients were more likely to receive a recommendation to stop, including those 80-84 years (odds ratio [OR], 7.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-12.3) and ≥85 years (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.3-24.6), compared with those 75-79 years. Family history of colorectal cancer (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74) and a history of low-risk (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.11-0.24) or high-risk (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04) polyps were inversely associated with recommendations to stop. The likelihood of a recommendation to stop varied significantly across endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Only 35% of adults ≥75 years of age are recommended to stop surveillance colonoscopy. The presence of polyps was strongly associated with fewer recommendations to stop. The variation in endoscopist recommendations highlights an opportunity to better standardize recommendations following colonoscopy in older adults.

Updates on age to start and stop colorectal cancer screening: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Digital System for Histologic Classification of Colorectal Polyps.

Importance: Colorectal polyps are common, and their histopathologic classification is used in the planning of follow-up surveillance. Substantial variation has been observed in pathologists' classification of colorectal polyps, and improved assessment by pathologists may be associated with reduced subsequent underuse and overuse of colonoscopy. Objective: To compare standard microscopic assessment with an artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented digital system that annotates regions of interest within digitized polyp tissue and predicts polyp type using a deep learning model to assist pathologists in colorectal polyp classification. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center and a community hospital in New Hampshire, 100 slides with colorectal polyp samples were read by 15 pathologists using a microscope and an AI-augmented digital system, with a washout period of at least 12 weeks between use of each modality. The study was conducted from February 10 to July 10, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy and time of evaluation were used to compare pathologists' performance when a microscope was used with their performance when the AI-augmented digital system was used. Outcomes were compared using paired t tests and mixed-effects models. Results: In assessments of 100 slides with colorectal polyp specimens, use of the AI-augmented digital system significantly improved pathologists' classification accuracy compared with microscopic assessment from 73.9% (95% CI, 71.7%-76.2%) to 80.8% (95% CI, 78.8%-82.8%) (P < .001). The overall difference in the evaluation time per slide between the digital system (mean, 21.7 seconds; 95% CI, 20.8-22.7 seconds) and microscopic examination (mean, 13.0 seconds; 95% CI, 12.4-13.5 seconds) was -8.8 seconds (95% CI, -9.8 to -7.7 seconds), but this difference decreased as pathologists became more familiar and experienced with the digital system; the difference between the time of evaluation on the last set of 20 slides for all pathologists when using the microscope and the digital system was 4.8 seconds (95% CI, 3.0-6.5 seconds). Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, an AI-augmented digital system significantly improved the accuracy of pathologic interpretation of colorectal polyps compared with microscopic assessment. If applied broadly to clinical practice, this tool may be associated with decreases in subsequent overuse and underuse of colonoscopy and thus with improved patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

Recurrence of Colorectal Neoplastic Polyps After Incomplete Resection.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete resection of neoplastic polyps is considered an important reason for the development of colorectal cancer. However, there are no data on the natural history of polyps that were incompletely removed. OBJECTIVE: To examine the risk for metachronous neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy after documented incomplete polyp resection. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of patients who participated in the CARE (Complete Adenoma REsection) study (2009 to 2012). SETTING: 2 academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients who had resection of a 5- to 20-mm neoplastic polyp, had a documented complete or incomplete resection, and had a surveillance examination. MEASUREMENTS: Segment metachronous neoplasia, defined as the proportion of colon segments with at least 1 neoplastic polyp at first surveillance examination, was measured. Segment metachronous neoplasia was compared between segments with a prior incomplete polyp resection (incomplete segments) and those with a prior complete resection (complete segments), accounting for clustering of segments within patients. RESULTS: Of 233 participants in the original study, 166 (71%) had at least 1 surveillance examination. Median time to surveillance was shorter after incomplete versus complete resection (median, 17 vs. 45 months). The risk for any metachronous neoplasia was greater in segments with incomplete versus complete resection (52% vs. 23%; risk difference [RD], 28% [95% CI, 9% to 47%]; P = 0.004). Incomplete segments also had a greater number of neoplastic polyps (mean, 0.8 vs. 0.3; RD, 0.50 [CI, 0.1 to 0.9]; P = 0.008) and greater risk for advanced neoplasia (18% vs. 3%; RD, 15% [CI, 1% to 29%]; P = 0.034). Incomplete resection was the strongest independent factor associated with metachronous neoplasia (odds ratio, 3.0 [CI, 1.12 to 8.17]). LIMITATION: Potential patient selection bias due to incomplete follow-up. CONCLUSION: This natural history study found a statistically significantly greater risk for future neoplasia and advanced neoplasia in colon segments after incomplete resection compared with segments with complete resection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.