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

[Cancer prevention recommendations: Update 2024]

Cancer is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality. Environmental factors along with lifestyle: tobacco and alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyle and lack of physical activity, are some of the risk factors that have caused an increase in cancer. This article updates the evidence and recommendations for cancer prevention strategies through screening in asymptomatic patients, as well as early detection of signs and symptoms in medium-risk and high-risk populations.

Trends and Age-Period-Cohort Effect on the Incidence of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (20-44 Years) from 1990 to 2021 in the United States

The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in individuals under 50 years old is rapidly increasing in the United States. This study aims to evaluate EO-CRC incidence rates using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2021, providing insights into trends from 1990 to 2021. We employed an age-period-cohort (APC) model analysis to estimate the effects of age, time period, and birth cohort on EO-CRC incidence. Our findings indicate that the number of EO-CRC cases rose from 6256 (95% UI: 6059-6456) in 1990 to 9311 (95% UI: 8859-9744) in 2021, a 49% increase from 1990 to 2021. The age-standardized incidence rate per 100,000 population increased by 34% during this period. The net drift in females (0.22%, 95% CI: 0.20-0.24) was slightly higher than in males (0.21%, 95% CI: 0.19-0.23) (p = 0.45). The APC analysis revealed that being over 25 years old, the period from 2005-2021, and being born after 1983 negatively impacted EO-CRC incidence rates, with a sharp rise after 2000 and a reduction among females from 2017 to 2021. Our study highlights the need for targeted prevention strategies and further research to understand these trends.

Development of a Follow-Up Measure to Ensure Complete Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Importance

The current quality performance measure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited to initial screening. Despite low rates, there is no measure for appropriate follow-up with colonoscopy after receipt of an abnormal result of a stool-based screening test (SBT) for CRC. A quality performance measure is needed.

Objective

To develop and test a quality performance measure for follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months of an abnormal result of an SBT for CRC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective quality improvement study examined data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, with 2018 plus 6 months of follow-up as the primary measurement period to verify performance rates, specify a potential measure, and test for validity, reliability, and feasibility. The Optum Labs Data Warehouse (OLDW), a deidentified database of health care claims and clinical data, was accessed. The OLDW contains longitudinal health information on enrollees and patients, representing a diverse mixture of ages and geographic regions across the US. For the database study, adults from 38 health care organizations (HCOs) aged 50 to 75 years who completed an initial CRC SBT with an abnormal result were observed to determine follow-up colonoscopy rates within 6 months. Rates were stratified by race, ethnicity, sex, insurance, and test modality. Three HCOs participated in the feasibility field testing. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome consisted of follow-up colonoscopy rates following an abnormal SBT result for CRC. Reliability statistics were also calculated across HCOs, race, ethnicity, and measurement year.

Results

Among 20 581 adults (48.6% men and 51.4% women; 307 [1.5%] Asian, 492 [7.2%] Black, 644 [3.1%] Hispanic, and 17 705 [86.0%] White; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [7.1] years) in 38 health systems, 47.9% had a follow-up colonoscopy following an abnormal SBT result for CRC within 6 months. There was significant variation between HCOs. Notably, significantly fewer Black patients (37.1% [95% CI, 34.6%-39.5%]) and patients with Medicare (49.2% [95% CI, 47.7%-50.6%]) or Medicaid (39.2% [95% CI, 36.3%-42.1%]) insurance received a follow-up colonoscopy. A quality performance measure that tracks rates of follow-up within 6 months of an abnormal SBT result was observed to be feasible, valid, and reliable, with a median reliability statistic between HCOs of 94.5% (range, 74.3%-99.7%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this observational study of 20 581 adults suggest that a measure of follow-up colonoscopy within defined periods after an abnormal result of an SBT test for CRC is warranted based on low current performance rates and would be feasible to collect by health systems and produce valid, reliable results.

Cost-Effectiveness of Liquid Biopsy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Patients Who Are Unscreened

Importance

Despite recommendations for universal screening, adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the US is approximately 60%. Liquid biopsy tests are in development for cancer early detection, but it is unclear whether they are cost-effective for colorectal cancer screening.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare no screening and 5 colorectal cancer screening strategies: colonoscopy, liquid biopsy, liquid biopsy following nonadherence to colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test. Adherence to first-line screening with colonoscopy, stool DNA, or fecal immunochemical test was assumed to be 60.6%, and adherence for liquid biopsy was assumed to be 100%. For colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test, patients who did not adhere to testing were not offered other screening. In colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid, liquid biopsy was second-line screening for those who deferred colonoscopy. Scenario analyses were performed to include the possibility of polyp detection for liquid biopsy.

Exposures

No screening, colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, stool DNA, liquid biopsy, and colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Model outcomes included life expectancy, total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was considered cost-effective if it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained.

Results

This study used a simulated cohort of patients aged 45 years with average risk of colorectal cancer. In the base case, colonoscopy was the preferred, or cost-effective, strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28 071 per life-year gained. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had the greatest gain in life-years gained but had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $377 538. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had a greater gain in life-years if liquid biopsy could detect polyps but remained too costly.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy was a cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening in the general population, and the inclusion of liquid biopsy as a first- or second-line screening strategy was not cost-effective at its current cost and screening performance. Liquid biopsy tests for colorectal cancer screening may become cost-effective if their cost is substantially lowered.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, including esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, gastric, duodenal and distal small bowel, biliary tract, pancreatic, colon, rectal, and anal cancer, comprise a heterogeneous group of malignancies that impose a significant global burden. Immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape for several GI cancers, offering some patients durable responses and prolonged survival. Specifically, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), either as monotherapies or in combination regimens, have gained tissue site-specific regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic disease and in the resectable setting. Indications for ICIs in GI cancer, however, have differing biomarker and histology requirements depending on the anatomic site of origin. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles compared with other systemic treatments that have long been the mainstay for GI cancer, such as chemotherapy. With the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of GI cancer. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the expert panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using ICIs to treat GI cancers, with topics including biomarker testing, therapy selection, and patient education and quality of life considerations, among others.

A 5-year evaluation of early-and late-onset sporadic colorectal cancer screening in central Saudi Arabia

Background

The Al-Kharj colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was implemented for five years (2017-2022) in a central urban area of Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia, to assess the participation and impact of the program in average-risk individuals.

Methods

The high sensitivity-guaiac based-fecal occult blood test (HSgFOBT) was used as a first-line investigation to identify asymptomatic patients, aged 45-75 years, requiring CRC screening using colonoscopy. The program was run in three tertiary hospitals in the area.

Results

The five-year participation rate was 73% (35,640/48,897). The average age was 53 years (range 45-75), 49% were female (17,464/35,640), all were asymptomatic, and 77% had adequate bowel preparation. The HSgFOBT (+) rate was 6.3% (n = 2245), and 76% (n = 1701) of these underwent colonoscopy. The prevalence of findings were as follows: CRC, 4.8% (81/1701); advanced adenoma, 9.5% (162/1701); adenoma, 15.9% (270/1701); non-adenomatous polyps, 7.9% (135/1701); and no polyps or tumors, 25.4% (432/1701). Among participants aged 45-50 years, early onset-CRC had female predominance, while those ≥50 years with late onset-CRC were predominantly male. CRC was more prevalent in the left colon (P < 0.005).

Conclusions

Approximately one-third of the participants diagnosed with CRC had early-onset CRC. Screening participation was desirable for the defined target population. Public education is necessary along with expanded colonoscopy resources to continue further citizen participation.

[PAPPS Expert Groups. Cancer prevention recommendations: Update 2022]

Cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Tobacco use, unhealthy diet, and physical inactivity are some of the lifestyle risk factors that have led to an increase in cancer. This article updates the evidence and includes recommendations for prevention strategies for each of the cancers with the highest incidence. These are based on the reduction of risk factors (primary prevention) and early diagnosis of cancer through screening and early detection of signs and symptoms, in medium-risk and high-risk populations. This update of the 2022 PAPPS has taken into account the vision of the National Health System Cancer Strategy, an update approved by the Interterritorial Council of the National Health System on January 2021 and the European Strategy (Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) presented on 4 February 2021.

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.

Innovations in GI-endoscopy

Gastrointestinal endoscopy covers both diagnosis and therapy. Due to its diagnostic accuracy and minimal invasiveness, several innovations have been made within the last years including artificial intelligence and endoscopic tumor resection. The present review highlights some of these innovation. In addition, a special focus is set on the experience made by our own research group trying to combine the expertise of endoscopists/ physicians as well as engineers and computer scientists.

Microsimulation Model for Prevention and Intervention of Coloretal Cancer in China (MIMIC-CRC): Development, Calibration, Validation, and Application

Introduction

A microsimulation model provides important references for decision-making regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention strategies, yet such a well-validated model is scarce in China.

Methods

We comprehensively introduce the development of MIcrosimulation Model for the prevention and Intervention of Colorectal Cancer in China (MIMIC-CRC). The MIMIC-CRC was first constructed to simulate the natural history of CRC based on the adenoma-carcinoma pathway. The parameters were calibrated and validated using data from population-based cancer registry data and CRC screening programs. Furthermore, to assess the model’s external validity, we compared the model-derived results to outcome patterns of a sigmoidoscopy screening trial in the UK [UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening (UKFSS) trial]. Finally, we evaluated the application potential of the MIMIC-CRC model in CRC screening by comparing the 8 different strategies.

Results

We found that most of the model-predicted colorectal lesion prevalence was within the 95% CIs of observed prevalence in a large population-based CRC screening program in China. In addition, model-predicted sex- and age-specific CRC incidence and mortality were equivalent to the registry-based data. The hazard ratios of model-estimated CRC-related incidence and mortality for sigmoidoscopy screening compared to no screening were 0.60 and 0.51, respectively, which were comparable to the reported results of the UKFSS trial. Moreover, we found that all 8 strategies could reduce CRC incidence and mortality compared to no screening.

Conclusions

The well-calibrated and validated MIMIC-CRC model may represent a valid tool to assess the comparative effectiveness of CRC screening strategies and will be useful for further decision-making to CRC prevention.