Population screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Does mammogram attendance influence participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening? A prospective study among 1856 French women

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine participation rates and factors associated with participation in colorectal (fecal occul blood test) and cervical cancer (Pap-smear) screening among a population of women participating in breast cancer screening.

METHODS

From August to October 2015, a self-administered questionnaire was sent by post to 2 900 women aged 50-65, living in Côte-d'Or, France, and who were up to date with mammogram screening. Polytomic logistic regression was used to identify correlates of participation in both cervical and colorectal cancer screenings. Participation in all 3 screenings was chosen as the reference.

RESULTS

Study participation rate was 66.3% (n = 1856). Besides being compliant with mammogram, respectively 78.3% and 56.6% of respondents were up to date for cervical and colorectal cancer screenings, while 46.2% were compliant with the 3 screenings. Consultation with a gynecologist in the past year was associated with higher chance of undergoing the 3 screenings or female cancer screenings (p<10-4), when consultation with a GP was associated with higher chance of undergoing the 3 screenings or organized cancer screenings (p<0.05). Unemployment, obesity, age>59 and yearly flu vaccine were associated with a lower involvement in cervical cancer screening. Women from high socio-economic classes were more likely to attend only female cancer screenings (p = 0.009). Finally, a low level of physical activity and tobacco use were associated with higher risk of no additional screening participation (p<10-3 and p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Among women participating in breast screening, colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates could be improved. Including communication about these 2 cancer screenings in the mammogram invitation could be worth to explore.

Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: A pilot multi-reader, multi-case study using concurrent Computer-Aided Detection (CAD)

PURPOSE

Evaluate concurrent Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to determine impact on radiologist performance and reading time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CAD system detects and extracts suspicious masses, architectural distortions and asymmetries from DBT planes that are blended into corresponding synthetic images to form CAD-enhanced synthetic images. Review of CAD-enhanced images and navigation to corresponding planes to confirm or dismiss potential lesions allows radiologists to more quickly review DBT planes. A retrospective, crossover study with and without CAD was conducted with six radiologists who read an enriched sample of 80 DBT cases including 23 malignant lesions in 21 women. Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC) compared the readings with and without CAD to determine the effect of CAD on overall interpretation performance. Sensitivity, specificity, recall rate and reading time were also assessed. Multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) methods accounting for correlation and requiring correct lesion localization were used to analyze all endpoints. AUCs were based on a 0-100% probability of malignancy (POM) score. Sensitivity and specificity were based on BI-RADS scores, where 3 or higher was positive.

RESULTS

Average AUC across readers without CAD was 0.854 (range: 0.785-0.891, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.769,0.939) and 0.850 (range: 0.746-0.905, 95% CI: 0.751,0.949) with CAD (95% CI for difference: -0.046,0.039), demonstrating non-inferiority of AUC. Average reduction in reading time with CAD was 23.5% (95% CI: 7.0-37.0% improvement), from an average 48.2 (95% CI: 39.1,59.6) seconds without CAD to 39.1 (95% CI: 26.2,54.5) seconds with CAD. Per-patient sensitivity was the same with and without CAD (0.865; 95% CI for difference: -0.070,0.070), and there was a small 0.022 improvement (95% CI for difference: -0.046,0.089) in per-lesion sensitivity from 0.790 without CAD to 0.812 with CAD. A slight reduction in specificity with a -0.014 difference (95% CI for difference: -0.079,0.050) and a small 0.025 increase (95% CI for difference: -0.036,0.087) in recall rate in non-cancer cases were observed with CAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent CAD resulted in faster reading time with non-inferiority of radiologist interpretation performance. Radiologist sensitivity, specificity and recall rate were similar with and without CAD.

Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme

IMPORTANCE AND AIMS

The role of CT colonography (CTC) as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test is uncertain. The aim of our trial was to compare participation and detection rate (DR) with sigmoidoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)) and CTC in a screening setting.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted two randomised clinical trials (RCTs). (1) Participation RCT: individuals, aged 58 years, living in Turin (Italy), were randomly assigned to be invited to FS or CTC screening; (2) detection RCT: residents in northern Italy, aged 58-60, giving their consent to recruitment, were randomly allocated to CTC or FS. Polyps ≥6 mm at CTC, or 'high-risk' distal lesions at FS, were referred for colonoscopy (TC).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participation rate (proportion of invitees examined); DR of advanced adenomas or CRC (advanced neoplasia (AN)).

RESULTS

Participation was 30.4% (298/980) for CTC and 27.4% (267/976) for FS (relative risk (RR) 1.1; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29). Among men, participation was higher with CTC than with FS (34.1% vs 26.5%, p=0.011). In the detection RCT, 2673 subjects had FS and 2595 had CTC: the AN DR was 4.8% (127/2673, including 9 CRCs) with FS and 5.1% (133/2595, including 10 CRCs) with CTC (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37). Distal AN DR was 3.9% (109/2673) with FS and 2.9% (76/2595) with CTC (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96); proximal AN DR was 1.2% (34/2595) for FS vs 2.7% (69/2595) for CTC (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.10).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participation and DR for FS and CTC were comparable. AN DR was twice as high in the proximal colon and lower in the distal colon with CTC than with FS. Men were more likely to participate in CTC screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01739608; Pre-results.

CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.

CT Colonography: an update on current and future indications

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive, patient-friendly, safe and robust colonic imaging modality. The technique is standardized and consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of colorectal cancer and large polyps are similar to colonoscopy (CS) and largely superior to alternative radiological exams, like barium enema. A clear understanding of the exact role of CTC will be beneficial to maximize the benefits and minimize the potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients. Incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; investigation of elderly, and frail patients and assessment of diverticular disease are major indications supported by evidence-based data and agreed by the endoscopists. The use of CTC for symptomatic patients, colorectal cancer screening and colonic surveillance is still under debate and, thus, recommended only if CS is unfeasible or refused by patients.

Computed tomography colonography for the practicing radiologist: A review of current recommendations on methodology and clinical indications

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most relevant causes of morbidity and mortality in Western societies. CRC screening is actually based on faecal occult blood testing, and optical colonoscopy still remains the gold standard screening test for cancer detection. However, computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) constitutes a reliable, minimally-invasive method to rapidly and effectively evaluate the entire colon for clinically relevant lesions. Furthermore, even if the benefits of its employment in CRC mass screening have not fully established yet, CT colonography may represent a reasonable alternative screening test in patients who cannot undergo or refuse colonoscopy. Therefore, the purpose of our review is to illustrate the most updated recommendations on methodology and the current clinical indications of CT colonography, according to the data of the existing relevant literature.

ESR Position Paper on Imaging Biobanks

In March 2014 the European Society of Radiology (ESR) established a dedicated working group (ESR WG on Imaging Biobanks) aimed at monitoring the existing imaging biobanks in Europe, promoting the federation of imaging biobanks and communication of their findings in a white paper. The WG provided the following statements: (1) Imaging biobanks can be defined as "organised databases of medical images and associated imaging biomarkers (radiology and beyond) shared among multiple researchers, and linked to other biorepositories". (2) The immediate purpose of imaging biobanks should be to allow the generation of imaging biomarkers for use in research studies and to support biological validation of existing and novel imaging biomarkers. (3) A long-term scope of imaging biobanks should be the creation of a network/federation of such repositories integrated with the already-existing biobanking network. The aim of the WG was to investigate the existence, consistency, geographical distribution and type of imaging biobanks in Europe. A survey among ESR members resulted in the identification of 27 imaging biobanks, mostly disease-oriented and designed for research and clinical reference. In 80 % access to imaging biobanks is restricted. Key points • Imaging biobanks are "shared databases of imaging biomarkers, linked to biorepositories".• Exploitation of traditional and imaging biobanks is meaningful for "personalised medicine".• A European imaging biobank network would significantly boost research in the imaging domain.

Familial colorectal cancer screening: When and what to do?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and represents a clinical challenge. Family members of patients affected by CRC have an increased risk of CRC development. In these individuals, screening is strongly recommended and should be started earlier than in the population with average risk, in order to detect neoplastic precursors, such as adenoma, advanced adenoma, and nonpolypoid adenomatous lesions of the colon. Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is a non invasive, widespread screening method that can reduce CRC-related mortality. Sigmoidoscopy, alone or in addition to FOBT, represents another screening strategy that reduces CRC mortality. Colonoscopy is the best choice for screening high-risk populations, as it allows simultaneous detection and removal of preneoplastic lesions. The choice of test depends on local health policy and varies among countries.

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

The study aims to review available evidence concerning effective interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening acceptance. We performed a literature search of randomised trials designed to increase individuals' use of CRC screening on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Small (≤ 100 subjects per arm) studies and those reporting results of interventions implemented before publication of the large faecal occult blood test trials were excluded. Interventions were categorised following the Continuum of Cancer Care and the PRECEDE-PROCEED models and studies were grouped by screening model (opportunistic vs organised). Multifactor interventions targeting multiple levels of care and considering factors outside the individual clinician control, represent the most effective strategy to enhance CRC screening acceptance. Removing financial barriers, implementing methods allowing a systematic contact of the whole target population, using personal invitation letters, preferably signed by the reference care provider, and reminders mailed to all non-attendees are highly effective in enhancing CRC screening acceptance. Physician reminders may support the diffusion of screening, but they can be effective only for individuals who have access to and make use of healthcare services. Educational interventions for patients and providers are effective, but the implementation of organisational measures may be necessary to favour their impact. Available evidence indicates that organised programmes allow to achieve an extensive coverage and to enhance equity of access, while maximising the health impact of screening. They provide at the same time an infrastructure allowing to achieve a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile of potentially effective strategies, which would not be sustainable in opportunistic settings.

CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness.

Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications

Twenty years after its introduction, computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has reached its maturity, and it can reasonably be considered the best radiological diagnostic test for imaging colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps. This examination technique is less invasive than colonoscopy (CS), easy to perform, and standardized. Reduced bowel preparation and colonic distention using carbon dioxide favor patient compliance. Widespread implementation of a new image reconstruction algorithm has minimized radiation exposure, and the use of dedicated software with enhanced views has enabled easier image interpretation. Integration in the routine workflow of a computer-aided detection algorithm reduces perceptual errors, particularly for small polyps. Consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of CRC and large polyps in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are similar to CS and are largely superior to barium enema, the latter of which should be strongly discouraged. Favorable data regarding CTC performance open the possibility for many different indications, some of which are already supported by evidence-based data: incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; symptomatic, elderly, and frail patients; and investigation of diverticular disease. Other indications are still being debated and, thus, are recommended only if CS is unfeasible: the use of CTC in CRC screening and in surveillance after surgery for CRC or polypectomy. In order for CTC to be used appropriately, contraindications such as acute abdominal conditions (diverticulitis or the acute phase of inflammatory bowel diseases) and surveillance in patients with a long-standing history of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease and in those with hereditary colonic syndromes should not be overlooked. This will maximize the benefits of the technique and minimize potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients.

Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives

Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66–90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.