A comparison of tumour and host prognostic factors in screen-detected vs nonscreen-detected colorectal cancer: a contemporaneous study

The relationship between systemic inflammatory response, screen detection and outcome in colorectal cancer

AIM

A raised systemic inflammatory response correlates with poorer colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes. Faecal immunochemical test bowel screening aims to detect early-stage disease. We assessed the relationship between systemic inflammatory response, screen detection and CRC survival.

METHOD

A retrospective, observational cohort study compared screen-detected and non-screen-detected CRC patients undergoing resection. Systemic inflammatory response was measured using lymphocyte/monocyte, neutrophil/lymphocyte and platelet/lymphocyte ratios (LMR, NLR, PLR). Covariables were compared using χ2 testing and survival with Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 761 patients were included (326 screen-detected, 435 non-screen-detected). Screen-detected patients had lower systemic inflammatory response: low (<2.4) LMR (28.8% vs. 44.6%; P < 0.001), moderate (3-5) or high (>5) NLR (26.1% vs. 30.6%, P < 0.001; and 7.7% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001) and high (>150) PLR (47.2% vs. 64.6%; P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 63 months. On univariate analysis, non-screen detection (hazard ratio [HR] 2.346, 95% CI 1.687-3.261; P < 0.001), advanced TNM (P < 0.001), low LMR (HR 2.038, 95% CI 1.514-2.742; P < 0.001), moderate NLR (HR 1.588, 95% CI 1.128-2.235; P = 0.008), high NLR (HR 2.382, 95% CI 1.626-3.491; P < 0.001) and high PLR (HR 1.827, 95% CI 1.326-2.519; P < 0.001) predicted poorer overall survival (OS). Non-screen detection (HR 2.713, 95% CI 1.742-4.226; P < 0.001), TNM (P < 0.001), low LMR (HR 1.969, 95% CI 1.340-2.893; P < 0.001), high NLR (HR 2.368, 95% CI 1.448-3.875; P < 0.001) and high PLR (HR 2.110, 95% CI 1.374-3.240; P < 0.001) predicted poorer cancer-specific survival (CSS). On multivariate analysis, non-screen detection (HR 1.698, 95% CI 1.152-2.503; P = 0.008) and low LMR (HR 1.610, 95% CI 1.158-2.238; P = 0.005) independently predicted poorer OS. Non-screen detection (HR 1.847, 95% CI 1.144-2.983; P = 0.012) and high PLR (HR 1.578, 95% CI 1.018-2.444; P = 0.041) predicted poorer CSS.

CONCLUSION

Screen-detected CRC patients have a lower systemic inflammatory response. Non-screen detection and systemic inflammatory response (measured by LMR and PLR respectively) were independent predictors of poorer OS and CSS.

The Relationship Between Co-morbidity, Screen-Detection and Outcome in Patients Undergoing Resection for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Bowel cancer screening increases early stage disease detection and reduces cancer-specific mortality. We assessed the relationship between co-morbidity, screen-detection and survival in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study compared screen-detected (SD) and non-screen-detected (NSD) patients undergoing potentially curative resection (April 2009-March 2011). Co-morbidity was quantified using ASA, Lee and Charlson Indices. Systemic inflammatory response was measured using the neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Covariables were compared using crosstabulation and the χ2 test for linear trend. Survival was analysed using Cox Regression.

RESULTS

Of 770 patients, 331 had SD- and 439 NSD-disease. A lower proportion of SD patients had a high ASA (≥3) compared to NSD (27.2% vs 37.3%; p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with a high (≥2) Lee Index (16.3% SD vs 21.9% NSD; p = 0.054) or high (≥3) Charlson Index (22.7% SD vs 26.9% NSD; p = 0.181). On univariate analysis, NSD (HR 2.182 (1.594-2.989;p < 0.001)), emergency presentation (HR 3.390 (2.401-4.788; p < 0.001)), advanced UICC-TNM (III or IV) (p < 0.001), high ASA (≥3) (HR 1.857 (1.362-2.532; p < 0.001)), high Charlson Index (≥3) (HR 1.800 (1.333-2.432; p < 0.001)) and high (≥3) NLR (HR 1.825 (1.363-2.442; p < 0.001)) were associated with poorer overall survival (OS). NSD predicted poorer cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 2.763 (1.776-4.298; p < 0.001)). On multivariate analysis, NSD retained significance as an independent predictor of poorer OS (HR 1.796 (1.224-2.635; p = 0.003)) and CSS (HR 1.924 (1.193-3.102; p = 0.007)).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with SD cancers have significantly lower ASA scores. After adjusting for ASA, co-morbidity and a broad range of covariables, SD patients retain significantly better OS and CSS.

Are adenoma and serrated polyp detection rates correlated with endoscopists' sensitivity of optical diagnosis?

INTRODUCTION : Endoscopists with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) detect these polyps more frequently, which may be attributable to better recognition of their endoscopic features. Little is known about the association between endoscopic lesion detection and differentiation skills. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps.

METHODS

We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the DISCOUNT-2 study, including complete colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performed by endoscopists who performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies. The correlations between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis were calculated using Pearson's rho correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

24 endoscopists performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies, resulting in a total of 2889 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 84.5 % (range 71.4 % - 95.3 %) and overall PSPDR was 13.7 % (4.3 % - 29.0 %). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps were 94.5 % (83.3 % - 100 %) and 74.0 % (37.5 % - 94.1 %), respectively. No correlation could be demonstrated between the ADR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas (-0.20; P = 0.35) or between the PSPDR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for serrated polyps (-0.12; P = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

In a homogeneous FIT-positive population, no correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps could be demonstrated. These exploratory results suggest that lesion detection and differentiation require different endoscopic skills. Further prospective studies are needed; until then, monitoring of both performance indicators is important to secure optimal efficacy of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

Screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in England: Associations with lifestyle and other factors in women in a large UK prospective cohort

Faecal occult blood (FOB) - based screening programmes for colorectal cancer detect about half of all cancers. Little is known about individual health behavioural characteristics which may be associated with screen-detected and interval cancers. Electronic linkage between the UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England, cancer registration and other national health records, and a large on-going UK cohort, the Million Women Study, provided data on 628,976 women screened using a guaiac-FOB test (gFOBt) between 2006 and 2012. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by logistic and Cox regression for associations between individual lifestyle factors and risk of colorectal tumours. Among screened women, 766 were diagnosed with screen-detected colorectal cancer registered within 2 years after a positive gFOBt result, and 749 with interval colorectal cancers registered within 2 years after a negative gFOBt result. Current smoking was significantly associated with risk of interval cancer (RR 1.64, 95%CI 1.35-1.99) but not with risk of screen-detected cancer (RR 1.03, 0.84-1.28), and was the only factor of eight examined to show a significant difference in risk between interval and screen-detected cancers (p for difference, 0.003). Compared to screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tended to be sited in the proximal colon or rectum, to be of non-adenocarcinoma morphology, and to be of higher stage.

Normocytic anaemia is associated with systemic inflammation and poorer survival in patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to characterise the prevalence and prognostic impact of normocytic anaemia in patients undergoing curative treatment for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

All individuals invited to the first round of bowel cancer screening, diagnosed with colorectal cancer and treated with curative intent from April 2009 to March 2011 in a single health board were included. The modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) was used to quantify preoperative systemic inflammation. Patients were grouped as having microcytic anaemia (Hb < 130 mg/L males, < 120 mg/L females and MCV < 80 fL), normocytic anaemia (Hb < 130 mg/L males, < 120 mg/L females and MCV 80-100 fL), or neither.

RESULTS

Of 395,097 patients invited to screening during the study period, 872 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Seven hundred seventy-seven patients had FBC measured at diagnosis, of which 78 (10%) had microcytic anaemia, and 180 (23%) normocytic anaemia. On multivariate binary logistic regression, microcytic anaemia was associated with T stage (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.26-2.91, p = 0.002) and mGPS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.10-2.24, p = 0.013), while normocytic anaemia was associated with colonic tumours (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.10-4.01, p = 0.025), T stage (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05-1.81, p = 0.022), and mGPS (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12-2.05, p = 0.007). On univariate Cox regression, there was no significant association between microcytic anaemia and cancer specific survival (CSS) (p = 0.969). Normocytic anaemia was significantly associated with poorer CSS (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.12, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Normocytic anaemia was associated with systemic inflammation and poorer CSS. Inflammation may drive both anaemia and disease recurrence in these patients, and targeting this process may improve both.

Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is capable of reducing CRC-related morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is the reference standard to detect CRC, also providing the opportunity to detect and resect its precursor lesions: colorectal polyps. Therefore, colonoscopy is either used as a primary screening tool or as a subsequent procedure after a positive triage test in screening programs based on non-invasive stool testing or sigmoidoscopy. However, in both settings, colonoscopy is not fully protective for the occurrence of post-colonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Because most PCCRCs are the result of colonoscopy-related factors, a high-quality procedure is of paramount importance to assure optimal effectiveness of CRC screening programs. For this reason, at the start of the Dutch fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program, quality criteria for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees, as well as for endoscopy centers, were defined. In conjunction, an accreditation and auditing system was designed and implemented. In this report, we describe the quality assurance process for endoscopists participating in the Dutch national CRC screening program, including a detailed description of the evidence-based quality criteria. We believe that our experience might serve as an example for colonoscopy quality assurance programs in other CRC screening programs.

Interval Colorectal Cancer Incidence Among Subjects Undergoing Multiple Rounds of Fecal Immunochemical Testing

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Among subjects screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) by the guaiac fecal occult blood test, interval cancers develop in 48% to 55% of the subjects. Data are limited on how many persons screened by fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), over multiple rounds, develop interval cancers. In the Netherlands, a pilot FIT-based biennial CRC screening program was conducted between 2006 and 2014. We collected and analyzed data from the program on CRCs detected during screening (SD-CRC) and CRCs not detected within the screening program (non-SD-CRC; such as FIT interval cancers, colonoscopy interval cancers, and cancer in nonparticipants).

METHODS

Screenees with a negative FIT result received a letter explaining that no blood had been detected in the stool sample and were re-invited, if eligible, for screening biennially. Screenees with a positive FIT result (hemoglobin concentration of 10 μg Hb/g feces) were invited for consultation and scheduled for colonoscopy; results were collected. After the fourth round of FIT screening, the cohort was linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry, through March 31, 2015; participant characteristics, data on tumor stage, location (at time of resection), and survival status were collected for all identified CRC cases. A reference group comprised all persons with CRC diagnosed in the Netherlands general population during the same period, in the same age range (50-76 years), who had not been offered CRC screening. The median time between invitations (2.37 years) was used as a cutoff to categorize participants within the FIT interval cancer category. We compared participant characteristics, tumor characteristics, and mortality among subjects with SD-CRC and with non-SD-CRC.

RESULTS

A total of 27,304 eligible individuals were invited for FIT screening, of whom 18,716 (69%) participated at least once. Of these, 3005 (16%) had a positive result from the FIT in 1 of the 4 screening rounds. In total, CRC was detected in 261 participants: 116 SD-CRCs and 145 non-SD-CRCs (27 FIT interval cancers, 9 colonoscopy interval cancers, and 109 CRCs in nonparticipants). The FIT interval cancer proportion after 3 completed screening rounds was 23%. Participants with SD-CRC had more early-stage tumors than participants with non-SD-CRCs (P < .001). Of persons with SD-CRC and FIT interval cancers, significantly higher proportions survived (89% and 81%, respectively) compared with persons with colonoscopy interval cancers (44% survival) and nonparticipants with CRC (60% survival) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from a pilot FIT-based biennial screening program, we found that among persons screened by FIT, 23% developed FIT interval cancer. FIT therefore detects CRC with 77% sensitivity. The proportion of FIT interval cancers in FIT screening appears to be lower than that with guaiac fecal occult blood testing. Clinical trial registry: yes, www.trialregister.nl, trial number: NTR5385.

Faecal occult blood testing screening for colorectal cancer and 'missed' interval cancers: are we ignoring the elephant in the room? Results of a multicentre study

AIM

Biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is used to screen for colorectal cancer throughout the UK. Interval cancers are tumours that develop in patients between screening rounds who have had a negative FOBT. Through a multicentre study, we compared the demographics of patients with interval cancers, FOBT screen detected cancers and cancers that developed in patients who chose not to participate in the screening programme.

METHOD

Five hundred and sixteen colorectal cancers were detected in the screening age group (60-74 years) population in three UK National Health Service hospitals over 2 years. One hundred and twenty seven (25%) were interval cancers, 161 (31%) were screen detected and 228 (44%) were cancers that developed in patients who had declined FOBT. The interval cancer group had a higher incidence of right-sided cancers (38% vs 29% and 24%), a higher proportion of high tumour stages (Dukes C and D) (70% vs 53% and 33%) and a shorter time from diagnosis to death (10 months vs 13 months and 24 months) compared to patients who had declined the FOBT and the FOBT screen detected cancers. Of all the patients studied, those with right-sided interval cancers had the worst outcome.

CONCLUSION

A quarter of the colorectal cancers diagnosed in our study were interval cancers. Patients with right-sided interval cancers had the highest proportion of Dukes C and D tumours coupled with the shortest survival time after diagnosis compared with the other groups.