Trends in colorectal cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS): analysis of the impact of different modalities on overall screening rates.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults in the United States. Despite compelling evidence of improved outcomes in CRC, screening rates are not optimal. This study aimed to characterize CRC screening trends over the last two decades and assess the impact of various screening modalities on overall CRC screening rates. Using National Health Interview Survey data from 2005-2021, we examined CRC screening (colonoscopy, mt-sDNA, FOBT/FIT, sigmoidoscopy, CT Colonography) rates among adults aged 50-75 years (n = 85,571). A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo-TSCS) analysis was conducted including a random effects GLS regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on changes in CRC screening rates. Among 50-75-year-olds, the estimated CRC screening rate increased from 47.7% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2021, with the largest increase between 2005 and 2010 (47.7% to 60.7%). Rates subsequently plateaued until 2015 but increased from 63.5% in 2015 to 69.9% in 2018. This was primarily driven by the increased use of mt-sDNA (2.5% in 2018 to 6.6% in 2021). Pseudo-TSCS analysis results showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the increase in overall screening rates (77.3%; p < 0.0001) between 2018-2021. While CRC screening rates increased from 2005 to 2021, they remain below the 80% goal. The introduction of mt-sDNA, a non-invasive screening test may have improved overall rates. Sustained efforts are required to further increase screening rates to improve patient outcomes and offering a range of screening options is likely to contribute to achieving this goal.

Estimated Average-Risk Colorectal Cancer Screening-Eligible Population in the US.

This cross-sectional study estimates the number of average-risk colorectal cancer screening­eligible individuals in the US since the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations in 2021.

Next-Generation Multitarget Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: A next-generation multitarget stool DNA test, including assessments of DNA molecular markers and hemoglobin level, was developed to improve the performance of colorectal cancer screening, primarily with regard to specificity. METHODS: In a prospective study, we evaluated a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test in asymptomatic adults 40 years of age or older who were undergoing screening colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were sensitivity of the test for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions). Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. Secondary objectives included the quantification of sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy and comparison of sensitivities for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions between the multitarget stool DNA test and a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT). RESULTS: Of 20,176 participants, 98 had colorectal cancer, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy. With the next-generation test, sensitivity for colorectal cancer was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1 to 97.7), and specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1 to 91.0). Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3 to 45.6), and specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2 to 93.1). With the FIT, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1 to 76.5) for colorectal cancer and 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5 to 25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions; specificity was 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4 to 95.1) for advanced neoplasia and 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3 to 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy. As compared with FIT, the next-generation test had superior sensitivity for colorectal cancer (P<0.001) and for advanced precancerous lesions (P<0.001) but had lower specificity for advanced neoplasia (P<0.001). No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The next-generation multitarget stool DNA test showed higher sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions than FIT but also showed lower specificity. (Funded by Exact Sciences; BLUE-C ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04144738.).

Next-generation Multi-target Stool DNA Panel Accurately Detects Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Precancerous Lesions.

The multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test screens for colorectal cancer by analyzing DNA methylation/mutation and hemoglobin markers to algorithmically derive a qualitative result. A new panel of highly discriminant candidate methylated DNA markers (MDM) was recently developed. Performance of the novel MDM panel, with hemoglobin, was evaluated in a simulated screening population using archived stool samples weighted to early-stage colorectal cancer and prospectively collected advanced precancerous lesions (APL). Marker selection study (MSS) and separate preliminary independent verification studies (VS) were conducted utilizing samples from multi-center, case-control studies. Sample processing included targeted MDM capture, bisulfite conversion, and MDM quantitation. Fecal hemoglobin was quantified using ELISA. Samples were stratified into 75%/25% training-testing sets; model outcomes were cross-validated 1,000 times. All laboratory operators were blinded. The MSS included 232 cases (120 colorectal cancer/112 APLs) and 490 controls. The VS featured 210 cases (112 colorectal cancer/98 APLs) and 567 controls; APLs were 86.7% adenomas and 13.3% sessile serrated lesions (SSL). Average age was 65.5 (cases) and 63.2 (controls) years. Mean sensitivity in the VS from cross-validation was 95.2% for colorectal cancer and 57.2% for APLs, with specificities of 89.8% (no CRC/APLs) and 92.4% (no neoplasia). Subgroup analyses showed colorectal cancer sensitivities of 93.4% (stage I) and 94.2% (stage II). APL sensitivity was 82.9% for high-grade dysplasia, 73.4% for villous lesions, 49.8% for tubular lesions, and 30.2% for SSLs. These data support high sensitivity and specificity for a next-generation mt-sDNA test panel. Further evaluation of assay performance will be characterized in a prospective, multi-center clinical validation study (NCT04144738). PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study highlights performance of the next-generation mt-sDNA test, which exhibits high sensitivity and specificity for detecting colorectal cancer and APLs. This noninvasive option has potential to increase screening participation and clinical outcomes. A multi-center, clinical validation trial is underway. See related commentary by Bresalier, p. 93.

Impact of Eliminating Cost-Sharing by Medicare Beneficiaries for Follow-Up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-based Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Medicare coverage of a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal cancer screening test with no patient cost-sharing started January 2, 2023, which may favorably affect screening behavior. This analysis estimated the clinical and economic effects of increased colorectal cancer screening participation potentially resulting from this policy change in Medicare beneficiaries. The validated Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence & Mortality (CRC-AIM) model simulated three guideline-endorsed colorectal cancer screening strategies for average-risk individuals (colonoscopy every 10 years, annual fecal immunochemical test, triennial multitarget stool DNA) from ages 65-75 years. The base-case scenario assumed 0% coinsurance for initial screening and follow-up colonoscopy, real-world screening test use (colonoscopy = 45.3%, stool-based test = 24.4%, unscreened = 30.3%), and real-world follow-up colonoscopy rates. Comparative scenarios assumed an increase in the overall screening rate from 0% to 15% (5% increments) and an increase in the follow-up colonoscopy rate from 0% to 15% (5% increments). The base-case scenario resulted in 128 life-years gained (LYG)/1,000 individuals versus no screening and total screening and treatment costs of $7,938/person. The changes resulted in an increase of up to 26 LYG/1,000 individuals and a decrease in total screening and treatment costs by as much as $128/person. Follow-up colonoscopy at $0 coinsurance became cost-saving with any increase in either overall screening or follow-up colonoscopy. Policies that remove cost barriers to completing colorectal cancer screening may increase rates of screening participation, potentially improving economic and clinical outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: A follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal cancer screening test is necessary to complete the full screening process. Policies that remove cost barriers to completing colorectal cancer screening may lead to increases in overall participation rates and use of follow-up colonoscopy, improving clinical and economic outcomes.

What do 'false-positive' stool tests really mean? Data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry.

We utilized the population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to calculate false discovery rates (FDR) and positive predictive values (PPVs) using three 'positive' colonoscopy definitions. Understanding the frequency of meaningful 'true positive' mt-sDNA and Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) results can optimize the use of these colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests. We calculated FDR (positive stool test followed by negative colonoscopy divided by all positive stool tests) and PPV for mt-sDNA and FIT cohorts using the following definitions: 1) DeeP-C Study (CRC, adenomas/serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm, villous/High Grade Dysplasia); 2) < 10 year US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) follow-up: DeeP-C findings & ≥1 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) < 1 cm (with/without dysplasia) or ≥ 1 tubular adenomas < 1 cm. 3) Clinically Significant: DeeP-C + USMSTF + clinically significant serrated polyps: traditional serrated adenomas, SSPs, hyperplastic polyps (HPs) > 1 cm, and 5-9 mm proximal HPs. The sample included 549 mt-sDNA + and 410 FIT + and patients (mean age 66.4, 43.0% male). Using the most limited definition of positive colonoscopy, DeeP-C, FDR was 71.9% for mt-sDNA + and 81.7% for FIT +. Using the USMSTF definition, FDR decreased substantially: mt-sDNA+:33.2% and FIT+:47.6%. Adding all CSSPs resulted in the lowest FDR: mt-sDNA+:32.2% and FIT+:47.1%. Decreasing FDRs corresponded to increasing PPVs: mt-sDNA+:28.1% and FIT+:18.3% (DeeP-C definition) and mt-sDNA+:67.8% and FIT+:52.9% (DeeP-C + USMSTF + CSSP) (Table 1). FDRs decreased substantially when the definition of positive exams included all significant precancerous findings. These data present a comprehensive understanding of false positive outcomes at colonoscopies following positive stool tests, which to our knowledge is the first such analysis.

Calibration and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model Using Deep Neural Networks.

OBJECTIVES: Machine learning (ML)-based emulators improve the calibration of decision-analytical models, but their performance in complex microsimulation models is yet to be determined. METHODS: We demonstrated the use of an ML-based emulator with the Colorectal Cancer (CRC)-Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model, which includes 23 unknown natural history input parameters to replicate the CRC epidemiology in the United States. We first generated 15,000 input combinations and ran the CRC-AIM model to evaluate CRC incidence, adenoma size distribution, and the percentage of small adenoma detected by colonoscopy. We then used this data set to train several ML algorithms, including deep neural network (DNN), random forest, and several gradient boosting variants (i.e., XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost) and compared their performance. We evaluated 10 million potential input combinations using the selected emulator and examined input combinations that best estimated observed calibration targets. Furthermore, we cross-validated outcomes generated by the CRC-AIM model with those made by CISNET models. The calibrated CRC-AIM model was externally validated using the United Kingdom Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST). RESULTS: The DNN with proper preprocessing outperformed other tested ML algorithms and successfully predicted all 8 outcomes for different input combinations. It took 473 s for the trained DNN to predict outcomes for 10 million inputs, which would have required 190 CPU-years without our DNN. The overall calibration process took 104 CPU-days, which included building the data set, training, selecting, and hyperparameter tuning of the ML algorithms. While 7 input combinations had acceptable fit to the targets, a combination that best fits all outcomes was selected as the best vector. Almost all of the predictions made by the best vector laid within those from the CISNET models, demonstrating CRC-AIM's cross-model validity. Similarly, CRC-AIM accurately predicted the hazard ratios of CRC incidence and mortality as reported by UKFSST, demonstrating its external validity. Examination of the impact of calibration targets suggested that the selection of the calibration target had a substantial impact on model outcomes in terms of life-year gains with screening. CONCLUSIONS: Emulators such as a DNN that is meticulously selected and trained can substantially reduce the computational burden of calibrating complex microsimulation models. HIGHLIGHTS: Calibrating a microsimulation model, a process to find unobservable parameters so that the model fits observed data, is computationally complex.We used a deep neural network model, a popular machine learning algorithm, to calibrate the Colorectal Cancer Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model.We demonstrated that our approach provides an efficient and accurate method to significantly speed up calibration in microsimulation models.The calibration process successfully provided cross-model validation of CRC-AIM against 3 established CISNET models and also externally validated against a randomized controlled trial.

Comparison of Simulated Outcomes Between Stool- and Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend covering blood-based tests meeting proposed minimum performance thresholds for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Outcomes were compared between currently available stool-based screening tests and a hypothetical blood-based test meeting CMS minimum thresholds. Using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM), outcomes were simulated for average-risk individuals screened between ages 45 and 75 years with triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Per CMS guidance, blood-based CRC screening was modeled triennially, with 74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity. Although not specified by CMS, adenoma sensitivity was set between 10% and 20%. Published adenoma and CRC sensitivity and specificity were used for stool-based tests. Adherence was set at (1) 100%, (2) 30%-70%, in 10% increments, and (3) real-world rates for stool-based tests (mt-sDNA = 65.6%; FIT = 42.6%; FOBT = 34.4%). Assuming perfect adherence, a blood-based test produced ≥19 lower life-years gained (LYG) than stool-based strategies. At the best-case scenario for blood-based tests (100% adherence and 20% adenoma sensitivity), mt-sDNA at real-world adherence achieved more LYG (287.2 vs. 297.1, respectively) with 14% fewer colonoscopies. At 100% blood-based test adherence and real-world mt-sDNA and FIT adherence, the blood-based test would require advanced adenoma sensitivity of 30% to reach the LYG of mt-sDNA (297.1) and ∼15% sensitivity to reach the LYG of FIT (258.9). This model suggests that blood-based tests with CMS minimally acceptable CRC sensitivity and low advanced adenoma sensitivity will frequently yield inferior outcomes to stool-based testing across a wide range of adherence assumptions.

Assessment of Stool DNA Markers to Detect Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multi-site Case-control Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The FDA-approved multitarget stool-DNA [mt-sDNA] test is a successful colorectal cancer [CRC] screening tool in average-risk individuals but is not indicated for patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. We determined the performance of the mt-sDNA assay without the haemoglobin component [mt-sDNAHgb-] in patients with IBD, while measuring sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal neoplasia [ACRN]. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, proof-of-concept investigation in persons aged 18-84 years with a diagnosis of IBD, or primary sclerosing cholangitis [PSC] with IBD. Enrolment occurred between March 2013 and May 2016. Stool was tested with the mt-sDNA molecular markers only, minus the immunochemical haemoglobin component. RESULTS: The analysis set contained 355 samples. The median age was 52 [range 39-62] years, 45.6% were female and 93% were White. Two-thirds [63%] had ulcerative colitis [UC] and 10.1% had PSC/IBD. Colonoscopy revealed cancer in 8.5% [N = 30], advanced precancerous lesions [APLs] in 9.3% [N = 33] and non-advanced precancerous lesions in 7.6% [N = 27], and three-quarters [74.7%, N = 265] had negative findings. mt-sDNAHgb- sensitivity was 73.3% for any stage cancers, and 76.2% for ACRN. Sensitivity was highest for IBD-associated high-grade dysplasia at 100% and 84.6% for IBD-associated low-grade dysplasia ≥1 cm. The test showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity in UC than in Crohn's disease. Increasing inflammation score was associated with a significant decrease in mt-sDNAHgb- test score [ = 0.028] amongst neoplasia-negative individuals, but not in patients with ACRN. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the potential of multitarget stool-DNA marker testing as an important addition to colorectal cancer surveillance by complementing colonoscopic evaluations in IBD patients.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of MUC1 Peptide Vaccine for Prevention of Recurrent Colorectal Adenoma.

PURPOSE: To assess whether MUC1 peptide vaccine produces an immune response and prevents subsequent colon adenoma formation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial in individuals age 40 to 70 with diagnosis of an advanced adenoma ≤1 year from randomization. Vaccine was administered at 0, 2, and 10 weeks with a booster injection at week 53. Adenoma recurrence was assessed ≥1 year from randomization. The primary endpoint was vaccine immunogenicity at 12 weeks defined by anti-MUC1 ratio ≥2.0. RESULTS: Fifty-three participants received the MUC1 vaccine and 50 placebo. Thirteen of 52 (25%) MUC1 vaccine recipients had a ≥2-fold increase in MUC1 IgG (range, 2.9-17.3) at week 12 versus 0/50 placebo recipients (one-sided Fisher exact P < 0.0001). Of 13 responders at week 12, 11 (84.6%) responded to a booster injection at week 52 with a ≥2-fold increase in MUC1 IgG measured at week 55. Recurrent adenoma was observed in 31 of 47 (66.0%) in the placebo group versus 27 of 48 (56.3%) in the MUC1 group [adjusted relative risk (aRR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60-1.14; P = 0.25]. Adenoma recurrence occurred in 3/11 (27.3%) immune responders at week 12 and week 55 (aRR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.11; P = 0.08 compared with placebo). There was no difference in serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: An immune response was observed only in vaccine recipients. Adenoma recurrence was not different than placebo, but a 38% absolute reduction in adenoma recurrence compared with placebo was observed in participants who had an immune response at week 12 and with the booster injection.

Phase II trial of weekly erlotinib dosing to reduce duodenal polyp burden associated with familial adenomatous polyposis.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) are at markedly increased risk for duodenal adenomas and cancer. Combination sulindac and erlotinib was previously shown to reduce duodenal polyp burden but was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if a once weekly dosing schedule for erlotinib intervention improves the AE profile, while still providing efficacy with respect to reduced polyp burden, in participants with FAP. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-arm trial, enrolling 46 participants with FAP, conducted from October 2017 to September 2019 in eight academic cancer centres. EXPOSURES: Participants self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth, one time per week for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Duodenal polyp burden (sum of polyp diameters) was assessed in the proximal duodenum by esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed at baseline and 6 months, with mean per cent change defined as the primary efficacy outcome of interest. Rate of grade 2-3 AEs was evaluated as a co-primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included changes in total duodenal polyp count, along with changes in lower gastrointestinal (GI) polyp burden and count (for participants examined by optional lower endoscopy). RESULTS: Forty-six participants (mean age, 44.1 years (range, 18-68); women, 22 (48%)) were enrolled; 42 participants completed 6 months of intervention and were included in the per-protocol analysis. Duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced after 6 months of weekly erlotinib intervention, with a mean per cent change of -29.6% (95% CI, -39.6% to -19.7%; p<0.0001). Similar results were observed in subgroup analyses defined by participants with advanced duodenal polyposis (Spigelman 3) at baseline (mean, -27%; 95% CI, -38.7% to -15.2%; p<0.0001). Post-intervention Spigelman stage was downstaged in 12% of the participants. Lower GI polyp number was also decreased after 6 months of intervention (median, -30.8%; IQR, -47.4% to 0.0%; p=0.0256). Grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 71.7% of subjects, with only two experiencing grade 3 toxicity at least possibly related to intervention. CONCLUSION: In this single-arm, multi-centre trial of participants with FAP, erlotinib one time per week resulted in markedly lower duodenal polyp burden, and modestly reduced lower GI polyp burden, after 6 months of intervention. While AEs were still reported by nearly three-quarters of all participants, these events were generally lower grade and well-tolerated. These findings support further investigation of erlotinib as an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated GI polyposis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02961374.

Three-Year Interval for the Multi-Target Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Study.

Data supporting the clinical utility of multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) at the guideline-recommended 3-year interval have not been reported.Between April 2015 and July 2016, candidates for colorectal cancer screening whose providers prescribed the mt-sDNA test were enrolled. Participants with a positive baseline test were recommended for colonoscopy and completed the study. Those with a negative baseline test were followed annually for 3 years. In year 3, the mt-sDNA test was repeated and colonoscopy was recommended independent of results. Data were analyzed using the Predictive Summary Index (PSI), a measure of the gain in certainty for dichotomous diagnostic tests (where a positive value indicates a net gain), and by comparing observed versus expected colorectal cancers and advanced precancerous lesions.Of 2,404 enrolled subjects, 2,044 (85%) had a valid baseline mt-sDNA result [284 (13.9%) positive and 1,760 (86.1%) negative]. Following participant attrition, the year 3 intention to screen cohort included 591 of 1,760 (33.6%) subjects with valid mt-sDNA and colonoscopy results, with no colorectal cancers and 63 advanced precancerous lesions [22 (34.9%) detected by mt-sDNA] and respective PSI values of 0% (P = 1) and 9.3% (P = 0.01). The observed 3-year colorectal cancer yield was lower than expected (one-sided P = 0.09), while that for advanced precancerous lesions was higher than expected (two-sided P = 0.009).Repeat mt-sDNA screening at a 3-year interval resulted in a statistically significant gain in detection of advanced precancerous lesions. Due to absence of year 3 colorectal cancers, the PSI estimate for colorectal cancer was underpowered and could not be reliably quantified. Larger studies are required to assess the colorectal cancer study findings. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Understanding the 3-year yield of mt-sDNA for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous polyps is required to ensure the clinical appropriateness of the 3-year interval and to optimize mt-sDNA's screening effectiveness.

Phase I Trial of a Therapeutic DNA Vaccine for Preventing Hepatocellular Carcinoma from Chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Infection.

Chronic hepatitis C can lead to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. We studied the safety and immunogenicity of a novel therapeutic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1a/1b consensus DNA vaccine, INO-8000, encoding HCV NS3, NS4A, NS4B, and NS5A proteins alone or co-administered with DNA-encoding IL12 (INO-9012), a human cytokine that stimulates cellular immune function, in individuals with chronic hepatitis C. This was a phase I, multisite dose-escalation trial with an expansion cohort evaluating doses of 0, 0.3, 1.0, and 3.0 mg of INO-9012 (IL12 DNA) as an addition to 6.0 mg of (INO-8000; HCV DNA vaccine). Vaccines were administered by intramuscular injection followed by electroporation at study entry and at weeks 4, 12, and 24. HCV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell immune responses were measured by IFNγ ELISpot and flow cytometry-based assays. Transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions unrelated to IL12 DNA dose were common. Increases in HCV-specific IFNγ production occurred in 15/20 (75%) participants. Increases in the frequency of HCV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells occurred at all dose levels, with the greatest increases seen at 1.0 mg of INO-9012. HCV-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell activities increased in 16/18 (89%) and 14/17 (82%) participants with available data, respectively. The vaccine regimen was safe and induced HCV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ cellular immune responses of modest magnitude in most HCV-infected participants. The addition of 1.0 mg of IL12 DNA provided the best enhancement of immune responses. The vaccine regimen had little effect on controlling HCV viremia. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: The administration of IL12 DNA along with a hepatitis C viral antigen DNA vaccine enhanced the HCV-specific immune responses induced by the vaccine in individuals with chronic hepatitis C, an important cause of hepatocellular carcinoma. IL12 could be an effective adjuvant in vaccines targeting HCV and other oncogenic viruses.

Serrated Polyp Yield at Colonoscopy in Patients with Positive FIT, Positive mt-sDNA, and Colonoscopy Only: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Stool-based screening with fecal immunochemical (FIT) or multitarget-stool DNA (mt-sDNA) tests is associated with increased colonoscopy polyp yield. mt-sDNA includes methylated markers, which improve detection of serrated polyps (SP) versus FIT. We compared SP detection in colonoscopies performed for positive FIT or mt-sDNA tests, as well as in colonoscopies without a preceding stool test, using the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, a comprehensive statewide population-based registry. METHODS: Across the three groups, we compared the frequency of clinically relevant SPs (CRSP: sessile SPs, hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas). We also compared SP size, histology, number, and bulk (combined sizes). RESULTS: Our sample included 560 mt-sDNA+ (age ± SD: 66.5 ± 7.9), 414 FIT+ (age ± SD: 66.3 ± 8.8), and 59,438 colonoscopy-only patients (age ± SD: 61.7 ± 8.0). mt-sDNA+ patients were more likely to have a higher yield of CRSPs and CRSP bulk than FIT+ (P < 0.0001) or colonoscopy-only patients (P < 0.0001). More mt-sDNA+ patients had CRSPs without large adenomas or colorectal cancers (17.9% vs. 9.9% of FIT+ and 8% of colonoscopy-only patients). After adjusting for synchronous large adenomas, colorectal cancers, and other risk factors, mt-sDNA+ patients were more likely (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.18-2.85) than FIT+ patients to have CRSPs. CONCLUSIONS: mt-sDNA+ patients had a higher SP yield than FIT+ or colonoscopy-only patients, particularly in the absence of synchronous large adenomas or colorectal cancer. IMPACT: Our results suggest that screening with mt-sDNA tests could improve colorectal cancer screening by identifying more patients at increased risk from the serrated pathway.

Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening decision-making among average-risk US adults.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain suboptimal in the US. We examined patient-focused concerns and influence of various factors (e.g., test attributes, provider recommendation) on CRC screening decision-making. We conducted a web survey with 1595 US adults aged 40-75 from a nationally representative panel in November 2019 (completion rate: 31.3 %). Analyses focused on individuals aged 45-75 years at average-risk for CRC (n = 1062). All participants rated their level of concern about various CRC screening test/procedure attributes. Participants who have screened previously designated the three most important attributes for choosing a screening method and rated how various factors influenced their decision to use a particular method. The top concern for participants who have not screened previously was having an invasive procedure (54.2 %) while the top concerns for participants who have screened previously were completing a colon prep (41.3 %) and test/procedure accuracy (41 %). Cost/insurance coverage was most frequently ranked among the most important attributes (48.5 %), followed by where the test can be taken (45.7 %) and test accuracy (43.6 %). Provider recommendation was reported as the major motivator across screening methods. Other factors that were frequently reported as very influential included convenience and comfort for the stool-based methods and scientific/clinical evidence and insurance coverage for colonoscopy. Variations by age, sex, and race/ethnicity were noted. Findings demonstrate that along with provider recommendation, patient preferences regarding test/procedure attributes and preparation requirements are influential in screening decision-making, highlighting the need for clinicians to involve patients in shared decision-making and incorporate patient needs and preferences in establishing screening strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Waiving Coinsurance for Follow-Up Colonoscopy after a Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Screening Test in a Medicare Population.

Commercial insurance covers a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer-screening test with no patient cost-sharing. Instituting a similar policy for Medicare beneficiaries may increase screening adherence and improve outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening was compared across adherence scenarios that assumed Medicare coinsurance status quo (20% for follow-up colonoscopy) or waived coinsurance. The CRC-AIM model simulated previously unscreened eligible Medicare beneficiaries undergoing stool-based colorectal cancer screening at age 65 for 10 years. Medicare costs, colorectal cancer cases, colorectal cancer-related deaths, life-years gained (LYG), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were estimated versus no screening. Scenario 1 (S1) assumed 20% coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy. Scenario 2 (S2) assumed waived coinsurance without adherence changes. Scenarios 3-7 (S3-S7) assumed that waiving coinsurance increased real-world stool-based screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence by 5% or 10%. Sensitivity analyses assumed 1%-4% increased adherence. Cost-effectiveness threshold was ≤$100,000/QALY. Waiving coinsurance without adherence changes (S2) did not affect outcomes versus S1. S3-S7 versus S1 over 10 years estimated up to 3.6 fewer colorectal cancer cases/1,000 individuals, up to 2.1 fewer colorectal cancer deaths, up to 20.7 more LYG, and had comparable total costs per-patient (≤$6,478 vs. $6,449, respectively) as reduced colorectal cancer medical costs offset increased screening and colonoscopy costs. In sensitivity analyses, any increase in adherence after waiving coinsurance was cost-effective and increased LYG. In simulated Medicare beneficiaries, waiving coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test improved outcomes and was cost-effective when assumed to modestly increase colorectal cancer screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test is necessary to complete the colorectal cancer-screening process. This analysis demonstrated that in a simulated Medicare population, waiving coinsurance for a follow-up colonoscopy improved estimated outcomes and was cost-effective when it was assumed that waiving the coinsurance modestly increased screening adherence. See related Spotlight, p. 641.

Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians' routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations. METHODS: We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations. RESULTS: Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%-35%; GIs, 30%-41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence. CONCLUSION: Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.

Colonoscopy Findings in FIT+ and mt-sDNA+ Patients versus in Colonoscopy-only Patients: New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry Data.

Few studies compare fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) outcomes in practice. We compared colonoscopy yield following FIT+ or mt-sDNA+ tests to colonoscopies without preceding stool tests in the comprehensive population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR). Outcomes were any neoplasia and an ordered outcome: adenocarcinoma, advanced neoplasia (adenoma/serrated polyp ≥ 1 cm/villous/high-grade dysplasia), nonadvanced neoplasia, or normal. Our total sample included 306 mt-sDNA+ (average age ± SD 67.0 ± 7.9), 276 FIT+ (66.6 ± 8.7), and 50,990 colonoscopy-only patients (61.8 ± 8.1). Among average-risk patients (N = 240 mt-sDNA+, N = 194 FIT+, N = 26,221 colonoscopy only), mt-sDNA+ patients had a higher risk for any neoplasia (67.1%) compared with FIT+ (54.6%, P = 0.00098) or colonoscopy (40.8%, P < 0.0001). Severity of findings and histology subtypes differed across the three groups (P < 0.0001 for both), with a higher yield of advanced findings in mt-sDNA+ patients. In particular, clinically relevant serrated polyps (hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm/traditional serrated adenomas/sessile serrated polyps) were detected at a higher frequency in mt-sDNA+ patients as compared with FIT+ or colonoscopy-only patients. Even after adjustment, patients with positive mt-sDNA [OR = 2.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.00-4.02] or FIT+ tests (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.36) were more likely to have histologically more advanced findings than colonoscopy alone. At follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA+ tests were more likely to predict neoplasia than FIT+, largely due to increased detection of serrated polyps. Prevention Relevance: Colorectal cancer screening options include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, including the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test which, if positive, must be followed by a colonoscopy. Assessing "real-world" outcomes of colonoscopies following positive stool tests can inform their clinical use. See related Spotlight, p. 417.

Provider-perceived barriers to patient adherence to colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the US. Provider recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions aimed at improving screening uptake, we examined providers' perspectives on patient and health system barriers to CRC screening adherence, along with associated system-level interventions to improve uptake. METHODS: We conducted an online survey between November and December 2019 with a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a validated panel of US clinicians (814 PCCs, 159 GIs; completion rates: 25.3% for PCCs, 29.6% for GIs). Clinicians rated the extent to which each patient and health system factor interferes with patient adherence with CRC screening recommendations and the availability of practice interventions to improve screening rates. RESULTS: Provider-reported top barriers to CRC screening included patient discomfort with offered screening method (66%), cost (62-64%), and perceived low importance of screening (62%). Additional barriers included providers prioritizing urgent health concerns over screening (45-48%), not offering a choice of screening options (42-48%), lacking time to educate patients about screening (38-45%), and lacking education about available screening options (37-40%). Most frequently reported system-level interventions to improve CRC screening rates included patient education materials (57-62%) and point of care prompts (56-61%). Other interventions were less frequently reported, although variations existed by clinical specialty regarding barriers and interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing barriers to CRC screening requires system-level interventions, including provider training on shared decision-making, automated scheduling and reminder processes, and policies to increase clinician time for preventive screening consultations.

Life-years gained resulting from screening colonoscopy compared with follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal screening test.

Screening colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) are typically covered without patient cost-sharing, whereas follow-up colonoscopies for positive stool-based screening tests often incur patient costs. The objective of this analysis was to estimate and compare the life-years gained (LYG) per average-risk screening colonoscopy and follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test to better inform CRC coverage policy and reimbursement decisions. CRC outcomes from screening and follow-up colonoscopies versus no screening were estimated using CRC-AIM in a simulated population of average-risk individuals screened between ages 45-75 years. The LYG/colonoscopy per 1000 individuals was 0.09 for screening colonoscopy and 0.29 for follow-up colonoscopy. 0.01 and 0.04 CRC cases and 0.01 and 0.02 CRC deaths were averted per screening and follow-up colonoscopies, respectively. Coverage policies should be revised to encourage individuals to complete recommended screening processes.