In adults, sigmoidoscopy screening invitation reduced CRC incidence and related mortality at 15 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Juul FE, Cross AJ, Schoen RE, et al. 15-year benefits of sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a pooled analysis of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:1525-33. 36215714.

In adults, a single colonoscopy screening invitation vs. no invitation reduced CRC incidence at 10 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Bretthauer M, Løberg M, Wieszczy P, et al. Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1547-56. 36214590.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Derivation and validation of a predictive model for advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

OBJECTIVE: Knowing risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) could help patients and providers choose among screening tests, improving screening efficiency and uptake. We created a risk prediction model for AN to help decide which test might be preferred, a use not considered for existing models. DESIGN: Average-risk 50-to-80-year olds undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy were recruited from endoscopy units in Indiana. We measured sociodemographic and physical features, medical and family history and lifestyle factors and linked these to the most advanced finding. We derived a risk equation on two-thirds of the sample and assigned points to each variable to create a risk score. Scores with comparable risks were collapsed into risk categories. The model and score were tested on the remaining sample. RESULTS: Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 (6.5) years; 52% women), AN prevalence was 9.4%. The 13-variable model (c-statistic=0.77) produced three risk groups with AN risks of 1.5% (95% CI 0.72% to 2.74%), 7.06% (CI 5.89% to 8.38%) and 27.26% (CI 23.47% to 31.30%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (p value <0.001), containing 23%, 59% and 18% of subjects, respectively. In the validation set of 1475 subjects (AN prevalence of 8.4%), model performance was comparable (c-statistic=0.78), with AN risks of 2.73% (CI 1.25% to 5.11%), 5.57% (CI 4.12% to 7.34%) and 25.79% (CI 20.51% to 31.66%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk subgroups, respectively (p<0.001), containing proportions of 23%, 59% and 18%. CONCLUSION: Among average-risk persons, this model estimates AN risk with high discrimination, identifying a lower risk subgroup that may be screened non-invasively and a higher risk subgroup for which colonoscopy may be preferred. The model could help guide patient-provider discussions of screening options, may increase screening adherence and conserve colonoscopy resources.

Mortality From Postscreening (Interval) Colorectal Cancers Is Comparable to That From Cancer in Unscreened Patients-A Randomized Sigmoidoscopy Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed at longer time intervals than the fecal occult blood test or screenings for breast or prostate cancer. This causes concerns about interval cancers, which have been proposed to progress more rapidly. We compared outcomes of patients with interval CRCs after sigmoidoscopy screening vs outcomes of patients with CRC who had not been screened. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trial in Norway with 98,684 participants (age range, 50-64 years) who were randomly assigned to groups that were (n = 20,552) or were not (n = 78,126) invited for sigmoidoscopy screening from 1999 through 2001; participants were followed up for a median 14.8 years. We compared CRC mortality and all-cause mortality between individuals who underwent screening and were diagnosed with CRC 30 days or longer after screening (interval cancer group, n = 163) and individuals diagnosed with CRC in the nonscreened group (controls, n = 1740). All CRCs in the control group were identified when they developed symptoms (clinically detected CRCs). Analyses were stratified by cancer site. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratio (HRs), adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: Over the follow-up period, 43 individuals in the interval cancer group died from CRC; among controls, 525 died from CRC. CRC mortality (adjusted HR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.35; P = .92), rectosigmoid cancer mortality (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.92; P = .74), and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.27; P = .91) did not differ significantly between the interval cancer group and controls. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trial, mortality did not differ significantly between individuals with interval CRCs and unscreened patients with clinically detected CRCs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00119912.

Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: An accurate, noninvasive test could improve the effectiveness of colorectal-cancer screening. METHODS: We compared a noninvasive, multitarget stool DNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in persons at average risk for colorectal cancer. The DNA test includes quantitative molecular assays for KRAS mutations, aberrant NDRG4 and BMP3 methylation, and ß-actin, plus a hemoglobin immunoassay. Results were generated with the use of a logistic-regression algorithm, with values of 183 or more considered to be positive. FIT values of more than 100 ng of hemoglobin per milliliter of buffer were considered to be positive. Tests were processed independently of colonoscopic findings. RESULTS: Of the 9989 participants who could be evaluated, 65 (0.7%) had colorectal cancer and 757 (7.6%) had advanced precancerous lesions (advanced adenomas or sessile serrated polyps measuring ≥1 cm in the greatest dimension) on colonoscopy. The sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer was 92.3% with DNA testing and 73.8% with FIT (P=0.002). The sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions was 42.4% with DNA testing and 23.8% with FIT (P<0.001). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT (P=0.004); the rates of detection of serrated sessile polyps measuring 1 cm or more were 42.4% and 5.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Specificities with DNA testing and FIT were 86.6% and 94.9%, respectively, among participants with nonadvanced or negative findings (P<0.001) and 89.8% and 96.4%, respectively, among those with negative results on colonoscopy (P<0.001). The numbers of persons who would need to be screened to detect one cancer were 154 with colonoscopy, 166 with DNA testing, and 208 with FIT. CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic persons at average risk for colorectal cancer, multitarget stool DNA testing detected significantly more cancers than did FIT but had more false positive results. (Funded by Exact Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01397747.).

Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability.

When there have been substantial failures by institutional leadership in their oversight responsibility to protect research integrity, the public should demand that these be recognized and addressed by the institution itself, or the funding bodies. This commentary discusses a case of research failures in developing genomic predictors for cancer risk assessment and treatment at a leading university. In its review of this case, the Office of Research Integrity, an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services, focused their report entirely on one individual faculty member and made no comment on the institution's responsibility and its failure to provide adequate oversight and investigation. These actions missed an important opportunity to emphasize the institution's critical responsibilities in oversight of research integrity and the importance of institutional transparency and accountability.

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies after polyp removal depending on the number and characteristics of polyps, but there is a lack of evidence supporting the recommendations. This report outlines the rationale and design of two randomized trials and one observational study investigating evidence-based surveillance strategies following polyp removal. Study design and endpoints: The EPoS studies started to recruit patients in April 2015. EPoS study I randomizes 13 746 patients with low-risk adenomas (1 - 2 tubular adenomas size < 10 mm, low-grade dysplasia) to surveillance after 5 and 10 years, or 10 years only. EPoS study II randomizes 13 704 patients with high-risk adenomas (3 - 10 adenomas or adenoma ≥ 10 mm in diameter, or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or > 25 % villous features) to surveillance after 3, 5, and 10 years, or 5 and 10 years only. EPoS study III offers surveillance after 5 and 10 years to patients with serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm in diameter at any location, or serrated polyps ≥ 5 mm in diameter proximal to the splenic flexure. All polyps are removed before patients enter the trials. The primary end point is colorectal cancer incidence after 10 years. We assume a colorectal cancer risk of 1 % for patients in EPoS I, and 2 % for patients in EPoS II. Using a noninferiority hypothesis with an equivalence interval of 0.5 % for EPoS I and 0.7 % for EPoS II, the trials are 90 % powered to uncover differences larger than the equivalence intervals. For EPoS III, no power analyses have been performed. CONCLUSIONS: The present trials aim to develop evidence-based strategies for polyp surveillance, thereby maximizing effectiveness and minimizing resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02319928).

Derivation and Validation of a Scoring System to Stratify Risk for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Adults: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Several methods are recommended equally strongly for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk persons. Risk stratification would enable tailoring of screening within this group, with less invasive tests (sigmoidoscopy or occult blood tests) for lower-risk persons and colonoscopy for higher-risk persons. OBJECTIVE: To create a risk index for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer and adenomas or serrated polyps ≥1.0 cm, villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia) anywhere in the colorectum, using the most common risk factors for colorectal neoplasia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Multiple endoscopy units, primarily in the Midwest. PATIENTS: Persons aged 50 to 80 years undergoing initial screening colonoscopy (December 2004 to September 2011). MEASUREMENTS: Derivation and validation of a risk index based on points from regression coefficients for age, sex, waist circumference, cigarette smoking, and family history of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Among 2993 persons in the derivation set, prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 9.4%. Risks for advanced neoplasia in persons at very low, low, intermediate, and high risk were 1.92% (95% CI, 0.63% to 4.43%), 4.88% (CI, 3.79% to 6.18%), 9.93% (CI, 8.09% to 12.0%), and 24.9% (CI, 21.1% to 29.1%), respectively (P < 0.001). Sigmoidoscopy to the descending colon in the low-risk groups would have detected 51 of 70 (73% [CI, 61% to 83%]) advanced neoplasms. Among 1467 persons in the validation set, corresponding risks for advanced neoplasia were 1.65% (CI, 0.20% to 5.84%), 3.31% (CI, 2.08% to 4.97%), 10.9% (CI, 8.26% to 14.1%), and 22.3% (CI, 16.9% to 28.5%), respectively (P < 0.001). Sigmoidoscopy would have detected 21 of 24 (87.5% [CI, 68% to 97%]) advanced neoplasms. LIMITATIONS: Split-sample validation; results apply to first-time screening. CONCLUSION: This index stratifies risk for advanced neoplasia among average-risk persons by identifying lower-risk groups for which noncolonoscopy strategies may be effective and efficient and a higher-risk group for which colonoscopy may be preferred. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute, Walther Cancer Institute, Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, and Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute.

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

Bone-density testing interval and transition to osteoporosis in older women.

BACKGROUND: Although bone mineral density (BMD) testing to screen for osteoporosis (BMD T score, -2.50 or lower) is recommended for women 65 years of age or older, there are few data to guide decisions about the interval between BMD tests. METHODS: We studied 4957 women, 67 years of age or older, with normal BMD (T score at the femoral neck and total hip, -1.00 or higher) or osteopenia (T score, -1.01 to -2.49) and with no history of hip or clinical vertebral fracture or of treatment for osteoporosis, followed prospectively for up to 15 years. The BMD testing interval was defined as the estimated time for 10% of women to make the transition to osteoporosis before having a hip or clinical vertebral fracture, with adjustment for estrogen use and clinical risk factors. Transitions from normal BMD and from three subgroups of osteopenia (mild, moderate, and advanced) were analyzed with the use of parametric cumulative incidence models. Incident hip and clinical vertebral fractures and initiation of treatment with bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or raloxifene were treated as competing risks. RESULTS: The estimated BMD testing interval was 16.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5 to 24.6) for women with normal BMD, 17.3 years (95% CI, 13.9 to 21.5) for women with mild osteopenia, 4.7 years (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.2) for women with moderate osteopenia, and 1.1 years (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.3) for women with advanced osteopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that osteoporosis would develop in less than 10% of older, postmenopausal women during rescreening intervals of approximately 15 years for women with normal bone density or mild osteopenia, 5 years for women with moderate osteopenia, and 1 year for women with advanced osteopenia. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: As screening methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) are limited by uptake and adherence, further options are sought. A blood test might increase both, but none has yet been tested in a screening setting. OBJECTIVE: We prospectively assessed the accuracy of circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA (mSEPT9) for detecting CRC in a screening population. DESIGN: Asymptomatic individuals ≥50 years old scheduled for screening colonoscopy at 32 US and German clinics voluntarily gave blood plasma samples before colon preparation. Using a commercially available assay, three independent blinded laboratories assayed plasma DNA of all CRC cases and a stratified random sample of other subjects in duplicate real time PCRs. The primary outcomes measures were standardised for overall sensitivity and specificity estimates. RESULTS: 7941 men (45%) and women (55%), mean age 60 years, enrolled. Results from 53 CRC cases and from 1457 subjects without CRC yielded a standardised sensitivity of 48.2% (95% CI 32.4% to 63.6%; crude rate 50.9%); for CRC stages I-IV, values were 35.0%, 63.0%, 46.0% and 77.4%, respectively. Specificity was 91.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 93.1%; crude rate 91.4%). Sensitivity for advanced adenomas was low (11.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study using the blood based mSEPT9 test showed that CRC signal in blood can be detected in asymptomatic average risk individuals undergoing screening. However, the utility of the test for population screening for CRC will require improved sensitivity for detection of early cancers and advanced adenomas. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00855348.

Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.

A vast range of disorders--from indolent to fast-growing lesions--are labelled as cancer. Therefore, we believe that several changes should be made to the approach to cancer screening and care, such as use of new terminology for indolent and precancerous disorders. We propose the term indolent lesion of epithelial origin, or IDLE, for those lesions (currently labelled as cancers) and their precursors that are unlikely to cause harm if they are left untreated. Furthermore, precursors of cancer or high-risk disorders should not have the term cancer in them. The rationale for this change in approach is that indolent lesions with low malignant potential are common, and screening brings indolent lesions and their precursors to clinical attention, which leads to overdiagnosis and, if unrecognised, possible overtreatment. To minimise that potential, new strategies should be adopted to better define and manage IDLEs. Screening guidelines should be revised to lower the chance of detection of minimal-risk IDLEs and inconsequential cancers with the same energy traditionally used to increase the sensitivity of screening tests. Changing the terminology for some of the lesions currently referred to as cancer will allow physicians to shift medicolegal notions and perceived risk to reflect the evolving understanding of biology, be more judicious about when a biopsy should be done, and organise studies and registries that offer observation or less invasive approaches for indolent disease. Emphasis on avoidance of harm while assuring benefit will improve screening and treatment of patients and will be equally effective in the prevention of death from cancer.

Endoscopic detection of proximal serrated lesions and pathologic identification of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps vary on the basis of center.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated rates of detection of proximal serrated lesions in a cohort of average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopies. METHODS: We reviewed results from screening colonoscopies performed by attending gastroenterologists at 32 endoscopy centers from 2008-2010. Pathology slides were interpreted at the individual centers. For this analysis, serrated lesions included hyperplastic polyps larger than 10 mm, those interpreted as sessile serrated adenomas (or sessile serrated polyp), and traditional serrated adenomas. Rates of detection for conventional adenomas and serrated lesions were compared among centers. RESULTS: A total of 5778 lesions were detected in 7215 screening colonoscopies. Of the 5548 lesions with pathology results, 3008 (54.2%) were conventional adenomas, 350 (6.3%) were serrated, and 232 (4.2%) were proximal serrated. The proportion of colonoscopies with at least 1 proximal serrated lesion was 2.8% (range among centers, 0%-9.8%). The number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy ranged from 0.00-0.11 (average, 0.05 ± 0.25). Overall lesion detection rates correlated with proximal serrated lesion detection rates (R = 0.91, P < .0001); conventional adenoma and proximal serrated lesion detection rates also correlated (R = .43, P = .025). The detection rate of proximal serrated lesions differed significantly among centers (P < .0001); odds ratios for detection ranged from 0-0.79. Some centers' pathologists never identified proximal serrated lesions as sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk screening cohort, detection of proximal serrated lesions varied greatly among endoscopy centers. There was also substantial variation among pathologists in identification of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Nationally, a significant proportion of proximal serrated lesions may be missed during colonoscopy examination or incorrectly identified during pathology assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT00855348.

Bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research.

Claims that molecular markers can accurately diagnose cancer have recently been disputed; some prominent results have not been reproduced and bias has been proposed to explain the original observations. As new '-omics' fields are explored to assess molecular markers for cancer, bias will increasingly be recognized as the most important 'threat to validity' that must be addressed in the design, conduct and interpretation of such research.

How can polygenic inheritance be used in population screening for common diseases?

Advances in genomics have near-term impact on diagnosis and management of monogenic disorders. For common complex diseases, the use of genomic information from multiple loci (polygenic model) is generally not useful for diagnosis and individual prediction. In principle, the polygenic model could be used along with other risk factors in stratified population screening to target interventions. For example, compared to age-based criterion for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening, adding polygenic risk and family history holds promise for more efficient screening with earlier start and/or increased frequency of screening for segments of the population at higher absolute risk than an established screening threshold; and later start and/or decreased frequency of screening for segments of the population at lower risks. This approach, while promising, faces formidable challenges for building its evidence base and for its implementation in practice. Currently, it is unclear whether or not polygenic risk can contribute enough discrimination to make stratified screening worthwhile. Empirical data are lacking on population-based age-specific absolute risks combining genetic and non-genetic factors, on impact of polygenic risk genes on disease natural history, as well as information on comparative balance of benefits and harms of stratified interventions. Implementation challenges include difficulties in integration of this information in the current health-care system in the United States, the setting of appropriate risk thresholds, and ethical, legal, and social issues. In an era of direct-to-consumer availability of personal genomic information, the public health and health-care systems need to prepare for an evidence-based integration of this information into population screening.

Risk for colorectal cancer in persons with a family history of adenomatous polyps: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) is unclear for persons who have first-degree relatives with adenomatous polyps (adenomas). PURPOSE: To determine the validity of studies about this issue. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases from 1966 through 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Sequential review of titles, abstracts, and text from retrieved articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Study objective, study design, and numbers in study groups. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies were identified that have been used to answer the question, "Does having a first-degree relative with an adenoma increase the risk for CRC?" We determined that they instead answer the question, "Does having a first-degree relative with CRC increase the risk for an adenoma?" We identified 2 additional studies that provide more relevant information. One study showed that the risk for CRC in persons who have first-degree relatives with adenomas is greater than the risk in persons who do not have first-degree relatives with adenomas (2.31% vs. 0.53%; relative risk, 4.36 [95% CI, 1.60 to 10.21]). The other study showed that the risk for CRC or large adenomas (≥1 cm) in persons who have first-degree relatives with large adenomas is greater than the risk in persons whose first-degree relatives do not have adenomas or CRC (8.3% vs. 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.27 [CI, 1.01 to 5.09]). LIMITATION: Even the 2 relevant studies have design problems that affect validity and generalizability. CONCLUSION: Most studies that are cited for the risk for CRC when relatives have adenomas do not address the issue. The 2 studies that do address the issue suggest an increased risk but have important methodological limitations. Properly designed studies are needed to measure the risk and identify the factors that modify it.