Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In more than half of the colorectal cancer screening participants with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result, no advanced neoplasia (AN) is detected at colonoscopy. The positive FIT result could also be generated by cancers located proximal to the colon: upper gastrointestinal, oral cavity, nose, and throat cancers. We evaluated screenees' risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within the 3 years and compared risks between those with a positive vs those with a negative FIT. METHODS: Data of Dutch colorectal cancer screening participants who underwent biennial FIT-based screening 2014-2018 were collected from the national screening database and linked to the National Cancer Registry. Screenees were classified into 3 groups: FIT-positives with AN (FIT+/AN+), FIT-positives without AN (FIT+/AN-), and FIT-negatives (FIT-). We compared the cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in each group 3 years after FIT. A Cox regression analysis with left truncation and right censoring, using FIT positivity as time-dependent variable and stratified for sex, was performed to compare the hazard of cancers proximal to the colon in participants who were FIT-positive vs FIT-negative. RESULTS: Three-year cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in FIT+/AN+ (n = 65,767), FIT+/AN- (n = 50,661), and FIT- (n = 1,831,647) screenees was 0.7%, 0.6%, and 0.4%, respectively (P < .001). FIT-positives were older and more frequently male than FIT-negatives (P < .001). Significantly more cancers proximal to the colon were detected among FIT-positives (P < .001; hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44-1.67). CONCLUSION: FIT-positive screenees were at significantly increased risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within 3 years after FIT, although the 3-year cumulative incidence was still less than 1%.

Stool-Based Testing for Post-Polypectomy Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Safely Reduces Colonoscopies: The Molecular Stool Testing for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy-based surveillance to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) causes substantial burden for patients and health care. Stool tests may help to reduce surveillance colonoscopies by limiting colonoscopies to individuals at increased risk of advanced neoplasia. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years with surveillance indication. Before bowel preparation, participants collected samples for a multitarget stool DNA test and 2 fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications. For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and is associated with a relatively low CRC risk, long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test's positivity threshold to obtain strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance. RESULTS: There were 3453 individuals with results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; 2226 had previous polypectomy, 1003 had previous CRC, and 224 had a familial risk. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR (Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold (Sentinel, Milan, Italy). Stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance reduced the number of colonoscopies by 15%-41% and required 5.6-9.5 stool tests over a person's lifetime. Multitarget stool DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies can be safe and cost-effective, with potential to reduce the number of colonoscopies by up to 41%. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT02715141.

Polyketide synthase positive Escherichia coli one-time measurement in stool is not informative of colorectal cancer risk in a screening setting.

Environmental factors like the pathogenicity island polyketide synthase positive (pks+) Escherichia coli (E. coli) could have potential for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The association between pks+ E. coli measured in fecal immunochemical test (FIT) samples and the detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) at colonoscopy was investigated. Biobanked FIT samples were analyzed for both presence of E. coli and pks+ E. coli and correlated with colonoscopy findings; 5020 CRC screening participants were included. Controls were participants in which no relevant lesion was detected because of FIT-negative results (cut-off ≥15 µg Hb/g feces), a negative colonoscopy, or a colonoscopy during which only a nonadvanced polyp was detected. Cases were participants with AN [CRC, advanced adenoma (AA), or advanced serrated polyp (ASP)]. Existing DNA isolation and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) procedures were used for the detection of E. coli and pks+ E. coli in stool. A total of 4542 (90.2%) individuals were E. coli positive, and 1322 (26.2%) were pks+ E. coli positive. The prevalence of E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with AN was 92.9% compared to 89.7% in FIT samples of controls (p = 0.010). The prevalence of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with AN (28.6%) and controls (25.9%) was not significantly different (p = 0.13). The prevalences of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with CRC, AA, or ASP were 29.6%, 28.3%, and 32.1%, respectively. In conclusion, the prevalence of pks+ E. coli in a screening population was 26.2% and did not differ significantly between individuals with AN and controls. These findings disqualify the straightforward option of using a snapshot measurement of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples as a stratification biomarker for CRC risk. © 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

The multitarget faecal immunochemical test for improving stool-based colorectal cancer screening programmes: a Dutch population-based, paired-design, intervention study.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely employed for colorectal cancer screening. However, its sensitivity for advanced precursor lesions remains suboptimal. The multitarget FIT (mtFIT), measuring haemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2, has demonstrated enhanced sensitivity for advanced neoplasia, especially advanced adenomas, at equal specificity to FIT. This study aimed to prospectively validate and investigate the clinical utlitity of mtFIT versus FIT in a setting of population-based colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Individuals aged 55-75 years and who were eligible for the Dutch national FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme were invited to submit both a FIT and mtFIT sample collected from the same bowel movement. Positive FIT (47 µg/g haemoglobin cutoff) or mtFIT (based on decision-tree algorithm) led to a colonoscopy referral. The primary outcome was the relative detection rate of mtFIT versus FIT for all advanced neoplasia. Secondary outcomes were the relative detection rates of colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps individually and the long-term effect of mtFIT-based versus FIT-based programmatic screening on colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and cost, determined with microsimulation modelling. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05314309, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 25 and Dec 7, 2022, 35 786 individuals were invited to participate in the study, of whom 15 283 (42·7%) consented, and 13 187 (86·3%) of 15 283 provided both mtFIT and FIT samples with valid results. Of the 13 187 participants, 6637 (50·3%) were male and 6550 (49·7%) were female. mtFIT showed a 9·11% (95% CI 8·62-9·61) positivity rate and 2·27% (95% CI 2·02-2·54) detection rate for advanced neoplasia, compared with a positivity rate of 4·08% (3·75-4·43) and a detection rate of 1·21% (1·03-1·41) for FIT. Detection rates of mtFIT versus FIT were 0·20% (95% CI 0·13-0·29) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·27) for colorectal cancer; 1·64% (1·43-1·87) versus 0·86% (0·72-1·04) for advanced adenoma, and 0·43% (0·33-0·56) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·26) for advanced serrated polyps. Modelling demonstrated that mtFIT-based screening could reduce colorectal cancer incidence by 21% and associated mortality by 18% compared with the current Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme, at feasible costs. Furthermore, at equal positivity rates, mtFIT outperformed FIT in terms of diagnostic yield. At an equally low positivity rate, mtFIT-based screening was predicted to further decrease colorectal cancer incidence by 5% and associated mortality by 4% compared with FIT-based screening. INTERPRETATION: The higher detection rate of mtFIT for advanced adenoma compared with FIT holds the potential to translate into additional and clinically meaningful long-term colorectal cancer incidence and associated mortality reductions in programmatic colorectal cancer screening. FUNDING: Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and Health~Holland.

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.

Clinical Validation of a Multitarget Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening : A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study.

BACKGROUND: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet it leaves room for improvement. OBJECTIVE: To develop a multitarget FIT (mtFIT) with better diagnostic performance than FIT. DESIGN: Diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING: Colonoscopy-controlled series. PARTICIPANTS: Persons (n = 1284) from a screening (n = 1038) and referral (n = 246) population were classified by their most advanced lesion (CRC [n = 47], advanced adenoma [n = 135], advanced serrated polyp [n = 30], nonadvanced adenoma [n = 250], and nonadvanced serrated polyp [n = 53]), along with control participants (n = 769). MEASUREMENTS: Antibody-based assays were developed and applied to leftover FIT material. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was applied to biomarker concentrations to identify the optimal combination for detecting advanced neoplasia. Performance of this combination, the mtFIT, was cross-validated using a leave-one-out approach and compared with FIT at equal specificity. RESULTS: The CART analysis showed a combination of hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2-the mtFIT-to have a cross-validated sensitivity for advanced neoplasia of 42.9% (95% CI, 36.2% to 49.9%) versus 37.3% (CI, 30.7% to 44.2%) for FIT (P = 0.025), with equal specificity of 96.6%. In particular, cross-validated sensitivity for advanced adenomas increased from 28.1% (CI, 20.8% to 36.5%) to 37.8% (CI, 29.6% to 46.5%) (P = 0.006). On the basis of these results, early health technology assessment indicated that mtFIT-based screening could be cost-effective compared with FIT. LIMITATION: Study population is enriched with persons from a referral population. CONCLUSION: Compared with FIT, the mtFIT showed better diagnostic accuracy in detecting advanced neoplasia because of an increased detection of advanced adenomas. Moreover, early health technology assessment indicated that these results provide a sound basis to pursue further development of mtFIT as a future test for population-based CRC screening. A prospective screening trial is in preparation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Stand Up to Cancer/Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and HealthHolland.

Personalised surveillance for serrated polyposis syndrome: results from a prospective 5-year international cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). International guidelines recommend surveillance intervals of 1-2 years. However, yearly surveillance likely leads to overtreatment for many. We prospectively assessed a surveillance protocol aiming to safely reduce the burden of colonoscopies. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, we enrolled SPS patients from nine Dutch and Spanish hospitals. Patients were surveilled using a protocol appointing either a 1-year or 2-year interval after each surveillance colonoscopy, based on polyp burden. Primary endpoint was the 5-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia (AN) during surveillance. RESULTS: We followed 271 SPS patients for a median of 3.6 years. During surveillance, two patients developed CRC (cumulative 5-year incidence 1.3%[95% CI 0% to 3.2%]). The 5-year AN incidence was 44% (95% CI 37% to 52%), and was lower for patients with SPS type III (26%) than for patients diagnosed with type I (53%) or type I and III (59%, p<0.001). Most patients were recommended a 2-year interval, and those recommended a 2-year interval were not at increased risk of AN: AN incidence after a 2-year recommendation was 15.6% compared with 24.4% after a 1-year recommendation (OR 0.57, p=0.08). CONCLUSION: Risk stratification substantially reduced colonoscopy burden while achieving CRC incidence similar to previous studies. AN incidence is considerable in SPS patients, but extension of surveillance intervals was not associated with increased AN in those identified as low-risk by the protocol. We identified SPS type III patients as low-risk group that might benefit from even less frequent surveillance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered on http://www.trialregister.nl; trial-ID NTR4609.

[Less surveillance colonoscopies needed: implications of the update of the Dutch colonoscopy surveillance guideline]. / Minder surveillancecoloscopieën nodig.

Whether colonoscopy surveillance is useful depends on the impact of colonoscopy surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence and colorectal cancer related mortality. After the introduction of colorectal cancer screening programs, with improved colonoscopy quality, and the publication of new scientific literature, the European guideline for colonoscopy surveillance was revised in 2020. The new guideline is easy to follow and differentiates between individuals with a high- and low-risk profile. Individuals with a high-risk profile have an increased risk of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer related mortality and should therefore undergo a surveillance colonoscopy. The new Dutch colonoscopy surveillance guideline is based on the European guideline. It is expected that, following the new guideline, less individuals will need to undergo colonoscopy surveillance without increasing their risk of colorectal cancer or colorectal cancer related mortality as compared to the general population. In our view, this is a good example of meaningful care.

Cross-sectional risk models using quantitative fecal hemoglobin in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) is a central tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. To improve the selection of individuals for colonoscopy, risk models combining FIT with additional CRC risk factors have been developed. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current noninvasive FIT-based risk models for CRC screening to facilitate future implementation. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for risk models that combined quantitative fecal hemoglobin with clinical data or noninvasive biomarkers and that were intended for CRC screening. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST tool. RESULTS: Twenty risk models reported across 29 publications were included. The overall risk of bias was high. In studies that compared risk models to FIT, 11/12 (92%) risk models had a significantly higher c-statistic than FIT only. 16/20 risk models (80%) had not been externally validated and only one model has been implemented so far. CONCLUSION: FIT-based risk models have the potential to improve the yield of CRC screening. Unfortunately, all included publications had a high risk of bias and most risk models have not yet been externally validated. The prospect of improved CRC screening with risk models should encourage more rigorous evaluation in existing screening programs.

The use of circulating tumor cells in guiding treatment decisions for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

The therapeutic landscape of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has drastically changed over the past decade with the advent of several new anti-tumor agents. Oncologists increasingly face dilemmas concerning the best treatment sequence for individual patients since most of the novel compounds have been investigated and subsequently positioned either pre- or post-docetaxel. A currently unmet need exists for biomarkers able to guide treatment decisions and to capture treatment resistance at an early stage thereby allowing for an early change to an alternative strategy. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have in this context intensively been investigated over the last years. The CTC count, as determined by the CellSearch System (Janssen Diagnostics LLC, Raritan, NJ), is a strong, independent prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with mCRPC at various time points during treatment and, as an early response marker, outperforms traditional response evaluations using serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, scintigraphy as well as radiography. The focus of research is now shifting toward the predictive value of CTCs and the use of the characterization of CTCs to guide the selection of treatments with the highest chance of success for individual patients. Recently, the presence of the androgen receptor splice variant 7 (AR-V7) has been shown to be a promising predictive factor. In this review, we have explored the clinical value of the enumeration and characterization of CTCs for the treatment of mCRPC and have put the results obtained from recent studies investigating the prognostic and predictive value of CTCs into clinical perspective.