Serrated Polyp Detection by the Fecal Immunochemical Test: An Imperfect FIT

Sessile serrated polyp detection rates after fecal immunochemical test or multitarget stool DNA test: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Published studies report a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) for FIT-DNA as compared with FIT. Data are less replete about the performance of stool-based tests for sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of FIT and FIT-DNA testing for SSP detection rate (SSPDR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy for follow up of positive noninvasive tests. Methods A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases (until September 2022) was performed to identify studies reporting SSPDR in patients with positive FIT or FIT-DNA tests. The outcome was overall colonoscopy detection of any SSPs and advanced serrated polyps (ASP: SSP ≥ 10 mm and/or dysplasia). Results Included were 482,405 patients (52.4% females) with a mean age of 62.3 ± 4.4 years from 23 studies. The pooled SSPDR for all positive stool-based tests was 5.3% and higher for FIT-DNA (15.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3-25.7) versus FIT (4.1%, 95% CI 3.0-5.6; P = 0.0002). The overall pooled ASP detection rate was 1.4% (95% CI 0.81-2.3) and higher for FIT-DNA (3.8 %, 95% CI 1.7-8.6) compared with FIT (0.71%, 95% CI 0.36-1.4; P <0.01). SSPDR with FIT-DNA was also significantly higher than FIT when the FIT cutoff was >10 ug/g and in FIT-positive patients in studies conducted in North America ( P <0.05). Conclusions FIT-DNA outperformed FIT in both SSP and ASP detection including FIT with a lower threshold cutoff of >10 ug/g. Further comparative studies are needed to assess the impact of our findings on colorectal cancer reduction.

The Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Advanced Neoplasia at Surveillance Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

An increasing burden on health care resources has resulted in a backlog of individuals requiring colonoscopy, with delays in surveillance possibly detrimental for individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study investigated the use of a 2-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to establish those most likely to have advanced neoplasia (AN) and in need of prioritized surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted in the tertiary care setting. Participants completed a 2-sample FIT (OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical Company) within 90 days of surveillance colonoscopy. The sensitivity of FIT for detection of AN (CRC or advanced adenoma) in moderate- and high-risk individuals was determined at fecal hemoglobin thresholds between 2 and 80 μg/g feces.

RESULTS

A total of 766 patients were included (median age, 66.1 years [interquartile range, 58.1-72.9]; 49.9% male), with AN detected in 8.6% (66/766, including 5 CRC). For moderate-risk individuals (with prior history of adenoma or a significant family history of CRC), sensitivity of FIT for AN ranged from 73.5% at 2 μg/g feces, to 10.2% at 80 μg/g feces. For high-risk conditions (confirmed/suspected genetic syndromes or prior CRC), sensitivity of FIT was similar, ranging from 70.6% at the lowest positivity threshold of 2 μg/g feces, to 11.8% at 80 μg/g feces. Independent variables in the whole cohort for association with detection of AN at surveillance colonoscopy were age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.06) and FIT hemoglobin result ≥10 μg/g feces (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.16).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of FIT before surveillance colonoscopy provides clinicians with insights into the risk of AN. This raises the possibility of a method to triage individuals, facilitating the more efficient management of endoscopic resources.

Sessile serrated lesion detection rates continue to increase: 2008-2020

Background and study aims  We assessed sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) at a large academic medical center from 2008 to 2020 and modeled a local, aspirational target SSLDR. We also assessed SSLDRs among all gastroenterology fellows to better understand the relationship between SSLDRs and total colonoscopies performed. Patients and methods  SSL-positive pathology results were flagged from a dataset composed of all screening colonoscopies for average-risk patients from 2008 to 2020. Unadjusted SSLDRs were calculated for individual endoscopists by year. A mixed effects logistic regression was used to estimate the log odds of SSL detection, with one model estimating division-wide predictors of SSL detection and a second model focused exclusively on colonoscopies performed by fellows. Model-adjusted SSLDRs were estimated for all 13 years and across both categories of all endoscopists and fellows only. Results  Adjusted SSLDRs showed a consistent improvement in SSLDR from a low of 0.37 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.63) in 2008 to a high of 7.94 % (95 % CI: 6.34-9.54) in 2020. Among fellows only, the odds of SSL detection were significantly lower during their first year compared to their second year (OR: 0.80, 95 % CI: 0.66-0.98) but not significantly higher in their third year compared to their second year (OR: 1.09, 95 % CI: 0.85-1.4). Conclusions  SSLDR increased steadily and significantly throughout our study period but variance among endoscopists persists. The peak SSLDR from 2020 of 7.94 % should serve as the local aspirational target for this division's attendings and fellows but should be continuously reevaluated.

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR.

METHODS

We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.

CONCLUSION

At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colon cancer screening strategies in the context of the French national screening program

BACKGROUND

A nationwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was set up in France from 2009 for average-risk, asymptomatic people aged 50-74 years based on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test [faecal immunochemical test (FIT)] every 2 years, followed by colonoscopy if positive. The European standard recommends a participation rate of 45% for the program to be cost-effective, yet the latest published rate in France was 34%. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives taking real-world participation rates into account.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared, based either on a screening test (Guaiac or FIT testing, blood-based, stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy) followed by full colonoscopy if positive or direct colonoscopy. A microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness associated with each strategy.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, FIT was associated with a 14.0 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase of €50,520 per 1000 individuals, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3600/QALY. Only stool DNA and blood-based testing were associated with a QALY increase compared with FIT, with stool DNA weakly dominated by blood-based testing, and the latter associated with an ICER of €154,600/QALY compared with FIT. All other strategies were dominated by FIT.

CONCLUSION

FIT every 2 years appears to be the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy when taking into account a real-world participation rate of 34%.

Colorectal Cancer Screening for the Serrated Pathway

Serrated polyps are classified into hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated adenomas/polyps, and traditional serrated adenomas. Although all serrated polyps share characteristic colonic crypts serrations, distinguishing hyperplastic polyps from sessile serrated adenomas/polyps is challenging. Traditional serrated adenomas are cytologically dysplastic lesions; sessile serrated adenomas/polyps develop cytologic dysplasia as they progress to colorectal cancer. A flat and pale appearance of serrated polyps may make detection difficult. Endoscopic mucosal resection has higher rates of complete resection. Close surveillance is recommended for sessile serrated adenomas/polyps, sessile serrated adenomas/polyp with dysplasia, hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas.

[Estimated impact of the current colorectal screening program in France]

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second most deadly in France. A Cochrane meta-analysis has confirmed the benefits of colorectal cancer screening. A nationwide colorectal screening program was set up in France in 2009 for medium-risk, asymptomatic people aged 50 to 74 years. It has been based, since 2015, on the Fecal Immunochemical Test. The participation rate for 2016-2017 was 34%, which is lower than the European objectives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the program at the current participation rate and at rates of 45% and 65%.

METHODS

The epidemiological impact of the program was estimated from the results of an individual simulation model adapted from the Microsimulation Screening Analysis Colon model, calibrated and transposed to the French context. An initial analysis was conducted to estimate the individual impact of screening and a second for the entire eligible population, at various participation rates.

RESULTS

The test is associated with a lifetime reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer of 24% for men and 21% for women, and a reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer of 51% and 43% respectively. At the current level of participation, the program reduces incidence by 5% and mortality by 14% compared to no organized screening. The impact would be reduced by an additional 3% and 8% for participation rates of 45% and 65% respectively. Similarly, mortality would decrease by an additional 8% and 22%.

CONCLUSION

These results confirm that in a population at medium risk for colorectal cancer, the organised programme is an effective strategy for reducing its incidence. They also confirm that the achievement of European objectives remains a key issue for improving the effectiveness of organized screening. An evolution of immunological test delivery modalities could help to achieve these participation objectives.

Genetic editing of colonic organoids provides a molecularly distinct and orthotopic preclinical model of serrated carcinogenesis

OBJECTIVE

Serrated colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for approximately 25% of cases and includes tumours that are among the most treatment resistant and with worst outcomes. This CRC subtype is associated with activating mutations in the mitogen-activated kinase pathway gene, BRAF, and epigenetic modifications termed the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype, leading to epigenetic silencing of key tumour suppressor genes. It is still not clear which (epi-)genetic changes are most important in neoplastic progression and we begin to address this knowledge gap herein.

DESIGN

We use organoid culture combined with CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering to sequentially introduce genetic alterations associated with serrated CRC and which regulate the stem cell niche, senescence and DNA mismatch repair.

RESULTS

Targeted biallelic gene alterations were verified by DNA sequencing. Organoid growth in the absence of niche factors was assessed, as well as analysis of downstream molecular pathway activity. Orthotopic engraftment of complex organoid lines, but not BrafV600E alone, quickly generated adenocarcinoma in vivo with serrated features consistent with human disease. Loss of the essential DNA mismatch repair enzyme, Mlh1, led to microsatellite instability. Sphingolipid metabolism genes are differentially regulated in both our mouse models of serrated CRC and human CRC, with key members of this pathway having prognostic significance in the human setting.

CONCLUSION

We generate rapid, complex models of serrated CRC to determine the contribution of specific genetic alterations to carcinogenesis. Analysis of our models alongside patient data has led to the identification of a potential susceptibility for this tumour type.

A Comparison of Fecal Immunochemical and High-Sensitivity Guaiac Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVES

Annual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

The study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.