Risk for colorectal cancer in persons with a family history of adenomatous polyps: a systematic review

Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prevention

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. There are disparities in the epidemiology of CRC across different populations, most probably due to differences in exposure to lifestyle and environmental factors related to CRC. Prevention is the most effective method for controlling CRC. Primary prevention includes determining and avoiding modifiable risk factors (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, and dietary factors) as well as increasing protective factors (e.g., physical activity, aspirin). Further studies, especially randomized, controlled trials, are needed to clarify the association between CRC incidence and exposure to different risk factors or protective factors. Detection and removal of precancerous colorectal lesions is also an effective strategy for controlling CRC. Multiple factors, both at the individual and community levels (e.g., patient preferences, availability of screening modalities, costs, benefits, and adverse events), should be taken into account in designing and implementing CRC screening programs. Health policymakers should consider the best decision in identifying the starting age and selection of the most effective screening strategies for the target population. This review aims to present updated evidence on the epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of CRC.

Identification of Molecular Targets of Bile Acids Acting on Colorectal Cancer and Their Correlation with Immunity

BACKGROUND

Bile acids (BAs) are closely related to the occurrence and development of colorectal cancer (CRC), but the specific mechanism is still unclear.

AIMS

To identify potential targets related to BAs in CRC and analyze the correlation with immunity.

METHODS

The expression of BAs and CRC-related genes in TCGA was studied and screened using KEGG. GSE71187 was used for external validation of differentially expressed genes. Immunofluorescence, immunohistochemistry, and enzymatic cycling assays were used to detect the expression levels of the differentially expressed genes ki67 and BAs. Weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) was used to identify genes associated with differential gene expression and immunity. The Cibersort algorithm was used to detect the infiltration of 22 kinds of immune cells in cancer tissues. The PPI network and ceRNA network were constructed to reveal the possible molecular mechanisms behind tumorigenesis.

RESULTS

The BA-related gene UGT2A3 is positively correlated with good prognoses in CRC. The expression level of UGT2A3 was negatively related to the BA level and positively related to the Ki67 proliferation index. The expression level of UGT2A3 was higher in the moderately differentiation and advanced stage (stage IV) of CRC. In addition, the expression level of UGT2A3 is correlated with CD8+ T cells. A PPI network related to UGT2A3 and T-cell immune-related genes was constructed. A ceRNA network containing 32 miRNA‒mRNA and 40 miRNA‒lncRNA regulatory pairs was constructed.

CONCLUSION

UGT2A3 is a potential molecular target of bile acids in the regulation of CRC and is related to T-cell immunity.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

METHODS

This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Unraveling the function of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in colorectal cancer: Metastasis, therapy response, and revisiting molecular pathways

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a dangerous form of cancer that affects the gastrointestinal tract. It is a major global health concern, and the aggressive behavior of tumor cells makes it difficult to treat, leading to poor survival rates for patients. One major challenge in treating CRC is the metastasis, or spread, of the cancer, which is a major cause of death. In order to improve the prognosis for patients with CRC, it is necessary to focus on ways to inhibit the cancer's ability to invade and spread. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a process that is linked to the spread of cancer cells, also known as metastasis. The process transforms epithelial cells into mesenchymal ones, increasing their mobility and ability to invade other tissues. This has been shown to be a key mechanism in the progression of colorectal cancer (CRC), a particularly aggressive form of gastrointestinal cancer. The activation of EMT leads to increases in the spread of CRC cells, and during this process, levels of the protein E-cadherin decrease while levels of N-cadherin and vimentin increase. EMT also contributes to the development of resistance to chemotherapy and radiation therapy in CRC. Non-coding RNAs, such as long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and circular RNAs (circRNAs), play a role in regulating EMT in CRC, often through their ability to "sponge" microRNAs. Anti-cancer agents have been shown to suppress EMT and reduce the progression and spread of CRC cells. These findings suggest that targeting EMT or related mechanisms may be a promising approach for treating CRC patients in the clinic.

Familial colorectal cancer

The introduction of average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs means that many subjects with family history of CRC and without well-described inherited syndromes can benefit from these public health policies. Therefore, the definition of which individuals should be named under the umbrella of the term "familial CRC" should be reconsidered to include only those who are outside of the protection of population-based screening and need to be moved towards a more intensive surveillance strategy. Two subgroups have been reported as having a high enough CRC risk to be included within the term "familial risk of CRC": individuals who have ≥1 first degree relative (FDR) with CRC diagnosed at age <50 years, and those who have ≥2 FDRs with CRC. Colonoscopy-based screening starting at age 40 years is proposed as the most accepted recommendation for these individuals. Finally, the evolution of Lynch syndrome screening from clinical criteria to tumor tissue analysis and new tools for screening pathogenic gene mutations associated with cancer susceptibility in individuals with early-onset CRC might help to reduce misclassification of familial CRC.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.

Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer Tied to Advanced Colorectal Polyps: An Untapped Opportunity to Screen First-Degree Relatives and Decrease Cancer Burden

Advanced adenomas represent a subset of colorectal polyps that are known to confer an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia to the affected individual and their first-degree relatives (FDRs). Accordingly, professional guidelines suggest earlier and more intensive screening for FDRs of those with advanced adenomas similar to FDRs of those with colorectal cancer (CRC). Although the risk to family members is less clear among patients with advanced serrated polyps, they are often considered in the same category. Unfortunately, there is a growing concern that patients, endoscopists, and primary care providers are unaware of the familial risk associated with these polyps, leaving a wide gap in screening these high-risk individuals. Herein, we propose a standardized language around advanced colorectal polyps and present a detailed review of the literature on associated familial risk. We outline the challenges to implementing the current screening recommendations and suggest approaches to overcome these limitations, including a proposed new colonoscopy quality metric to capture communication of familial CRC risk. Improving screening in these high-risk groups has the potential to substantially reduce the burden of CRC.

Prospective colonoscopic study to investigate risk of colorectal neoplasms in first-degree relatives of patients with non-advanced adenomas

OBJECTIVE

The risk associated with a family history of non-advanced adenoma (non-AA) is unknown. We determined the prevalence of colorectal neoplasms in subjects who have a first-degree relative (FDR) with non-AA compared with subjects who do not have an FDR with adenomas.

DESIGN

In a blinded, cross-sectional study, consecutive subjects with newly diagnosed non-AA were identified from our colonoscopy database. 414 FDRs of subjects with non-AA (known as exposed FDRs; mean age 55.0±8.1 years) and 414 age and sex-matched FDRs of subjects with normal findings from colonoscopy (known as unexposed FDRs; mean age 55.2±7.8 years) underwent a colonoscopy from November 2015 to June 2018. One FDR per family was recruited. FDRs with a family history of colorectal cancer were excluded. The primary outcome was prevalence of advanced adenoma (AA). Secondary outcomes included prevalence of all adenomas and cancer.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AA was 3.9% in exposed FDRs and 2.4% in unexposed FDRs (matched OR (mOR)=1.67; 95% CI 0.72 to 3.91; p=0.238 adjusted for proband sex and proband age). Exposed FDRs had a higher prevalence of any adenomas (29.2% vs 18.6%; mOR=1.87; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66; p<0.001) and non-AA (25.4% vs 16.2%; mOR=1.91; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; p=0.001). A higher proportion of exposed FDRs than unexposed FDRs (4.3% vs 2.2%; adjusted mOR=2.44; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.86; p=0.047) had multiple adenomas. No cancer was detected in both groups.

CONCLUSION

A positive family history of non-AA does not significantly increase the risk of clinically important colorectal neoplasia. The data support current guidelines which do not advocate earlier screening in individuals with a family history of non-AA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT0252172.

Effects of Family History on Relative and Absolute Risks for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines recommend that individuals with familial colorectal cancer undergo colonoscopy surveillance instead of average-risk screening. However, these recommendations vary widely. To substantiate appropriate surveillance strategies, precise and valid evidence-based risk estimates are needed for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018 for case-control and cohort studies investigating the effect of family history on CRC risk. We calculated summary estimates of pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Life tables were created to convert RR estimates into absolute risk estimates.

RESULTS

We screened 4417 articles and identified 42 eligible case-control and 20 cohort studies. In case-control studies, the RR for CRC in patients with 1 first-degree relative (FDR with CRC) was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.53-2.41) and 1.37 (95% CI, 0.76-2.46) for cohort studies. For individuals with 2 or more FDRs with CRC, the RR was 2.81 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.73-4.55) and 2.40 in cohort studies (95% CI, 1.76-3.28). For individuals having a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years, the RR for CRC in their FDRs was 3.57 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.07-11.85) and 3.26 in cohort studies (95% CI, 2.82-3.77). The cumulative absolute risks for CRC at 85 years in Western Europe were 4.8% for persons with 1 FDR with CRC (95% CI, 2.7%-8.3%), 8.2% for individuals with 2 or more FDRs (95% CI, 6.1%-10.9%), and 11% for persons with a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years (95% CI, 9.5%-12.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the RR of CRC among FDRs is lower than previously expected, especially based on cohort studies. Risk estimates are affected by the number of relatives with CRC and their age at diagnosis. Intensified colonoscopy surveillance strategies could be considered for high-risk groups. PROSPERO trial identification no: CRD42018103058.

Intestinal microbiota and colorectal carcinoma: Implications for pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers and leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. In recent years, there has been a growing realisation that lifestyle plays a major role for CRC development and that intestinal microbiota, which are shaped by lifestyle and nutrition habits, may be critically involved in the pathogenesis of CRC. Although the precise mechanisms for how the microbiota contribute to CRC development and progression remain elusive, increasing evidence suggests a direct causative role for the intestinal microbiota in modulating signalling pathways, anti-tumour immune responses and cell proliferation. Recent advances in understanding host-microbe interactions have shed light onto the putative use of intestinal microbiota as a powerful tool in CRC diagnosis and therapy. Here, we will discuss the role of the intestinal microbiota in CRC pathogenesis, their potential utility as diagnostic markers, and consider how microbes could be used in therapeutic approaches for the treatment of CRC.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals.

METHODS

Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Two-year retrospective analysis of patients undergoing direct to procedure flexible sigmoidoscopy investigation with rectal bleeding as a primary complaint

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

 Rectal bleeding affects ~15 % of the general population and is a common reason for referral to gastroenterologists by primary care physicians. Direct to procedure flexible sigmoidoscopy is an appealing modality to investigate rectal bleeding due its diagnostic yield, safety profile, and accessibility. Patients referred on a routine basis for direct to procedure clinic by primary care physicians with the sole complaint of rectal bleeding have not previously been studied. Our study aims to explore the spectrum of diagnoses and evaluate for potential clinical predictors of underlying pathology in this specific patient population.

METHODS

 In total, 528 charts of patients referred to the Kingston General Hospital and Hotel Dieu Hospital endoscopy units (Kingston, Canada) with the sole complaint of rectal bleeding were reviewed. All of these patients were referred on a routine basis to direct to procedure clinic from primary care physicians. The performance of various clinical variables in predicting significant pathology was assessed by univariate analysis.

RESULTS

 The diagnostic spectrum of the cohort studied included hemorrhoids (75.5 %), anal fissures (4 %), ulcerative colitis (3.2 %), Crohn's disease (1.1 %), indeterminate proctitis/colitis (1.7 %), and colorectal malignancy (2.7 %). Of the various clinical variables assessed, only male sex predicted significant pathology (25.2 % of males vs 17.6 % of females, P  < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 Our study highlights the need for a thorough investigation of rectal bleeding given the lack of clinical predictors. Future prospective studies with more patients are needed to fully assess the utility of various clinical variables in predicting pathology in this patient population. This would allow for more effective triaging of a routine rectal bleeding, a very common reason for patient referral to gastroenterologists by primary care physicians. Flexible sigmoidoscopy was not associated with complications or missed diagnosis in our study. As such, the technique appears to be a suitable initial investigative modality for patients with rectal bleeding.

The SEPT9 gene methylation assay is capable of detecting colorectal adenoma in opportunistic screening

AIM

This study validated the detection of colorectal adenoma in opportunistic screening using the SEPT9 gene methylation assay.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Plasma samples including 85 colorectal cancers, 364 adenomas, 216 hyperplastic polyps, 372 other gastrointestinal diseases and 324 normal subjects, were obtained and tested using the Epi proColon 2.0 CE assay.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The SEPT9 assay detected 38.7% of all types of adenoma, including 27.8% of serrated adenoma, 28.7% of tubular adenoma, 53.7% of tubulovillous adenoma and 83.3% of villous adenoma. It also detected 27.5% of nonadvanced adenoma (NAA), 47.0% of advanced adenoma (AA) without high-grade dysplasia and 62.5% of AA with high-grade dysplasia. The average adenoma detection rate was 31.8% (95% CI: 28.3-35.4%) with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score at 7.6 ± 1.2 (mean ± SD). Our study provided strong evidence for the application of the SEPT9 assay in AA detection in opportunistic screening.

2017 update on the relationship between diabetes and colorectal cancer: epidemiology, potential molecular mechanisms and therapeutic implications

Worldwide deaths from diabetes mellitus (DM) and colorectal cancer increased by 90% and 57%, respectively, over the past 20 years. The risk of colorectal cancer was estimated to be 27% higher in patients with type 2 DM than in non-diabetic controls. However, there are potential confounders, information from lower income countries is scarce, across the globe there is no correlation between DM prevalence and colorectal cancer incidence and the association has evolved over time, suggesting the impact of additional environmental factors. The clinical relevance of these associations depends on understanding the mechanism involved. Although evidence is limited, insulin use has been associated with increased and metformin with decreased incidence of colorectal cancer. In addition, colorectal cancer shares some cellular and molecular pathways with diabetes target organ damage, exemplified by diabetic kidney disease. These include epithelial cell injury, activation of inflammation and Wnt/β-catenin pathways and iron homeostasis defects, among others. Indeed, some drugs have undergone clinical trials for both cancer and diabetic kidney disease. Genome-wide association studies have identified diabetes-associated genes (e.g. TCF7L2) that may also contribute to colorectal cancer. We review the epidemiological evidence, potential pathophysiological mechanisms and therapeutic implications of the association between DM and colorectal cancer. Further studies should clarify the worldwide association between DM and colorectal cancer, strengthen the biological plausibility of a cause-and-effect relationship through characterization of the molecular pathways involved, search for specific molecular signatures of colorectal cancer under diabetic conditions, and eventually explore DM-specific strategies to prevent or treat colorectal cancer.

Measurement of DNA damage in peripheral blood by the γ-H2AX assay as predictor of colorectal cancer risk

The detection of γ-H2AX focus is one of the most sensitive ways to monitor DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). Although changes in γ-H2AX activity have been studied in tumor cells in colorectal cancer (CRC), changes in peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) have not been examined previously. We hypothesize that higher levels of irradiation-induced γ-H2AX in PBLs may be associated with an elevated risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a case-control study, the baseline and ionizing radiation (IR)-induced γ-H2AX levels in PBLs from frequency-matched 320 untreated CRC patients and 320 controls were detected by a laser scanning cytometer-based immunocytochemical method. We used unconditional multivariable logistic regression to evaluate CRC risk by using the ratio of IR-induced γ-H2AX to the baseline levels with adjustment of age, sex and smoking status. We found CRC cases had significantly higher γ-H2AX ratio (1.5 vs. 1.41, P<0.0001) compared with controls. When using the median γ-H2AX ratio of controls as a cutoff point, we found higher γ-H2AX ratio was significantly associated with an increased risk of CRC (OR=6.72, 95% CI=4.54-9.94). Quartile analyses also showed significant dose-response relationship between higher γ-H2AX ratio and increased risk of CRC (P for trend<0.0001). Age, sex, BMI and smoking status also influenced the association of γ-H2AX ratio with CRC risk; however, no interactions with γ-H2AX ratio were observed. These results support the premise that DSBs in peripheral blood as measured by γ-H2AX level might represent an intermediate phenotype to assess the risk of CRC. Future prospective studies are necessary to confirm our findings in independent populations.

CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to compare rates of lesion detection at CT colonographic (CTC) screening of adults without symptoms who had and who did not have a family history of colorectal cancer according to American Cancer Society guidelines and to consider the clinical implications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over 134 months, consecutively registered CTC cohorts of adults without symptoms who had (n = 156; 88 [56.4%] women; 68 [43.6%] men; mean age, 56.3 years) and who did not have (n = 8857; 4757 [53.7%] women; 4100 [46.3%] men; mean age, 56.6 years) an American Cancer Society-defined family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative with diagnosis before age 60 years or two first-degree relatives with diagnosis at any age) were compared for relevant colorectal findings.

RESULTS

For the family history versus no family history cohorts, the frequency of all nondiminutive polyps (≥ 6 mm) reported at CTC was 23.7% versus 15.5% (p = 0.007); small polyps (6-9 mm), 13.5% versus 9.1% (p = 0.068); and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), 10.2% versus 6.5% (p = 0.068). The rate of referral for colonoscopy was greater for the family history cohort (16.0% vs 10.5%; p = 0.035). However, the frequencies of proven advanced adenoma (4.5% vs 3.2%; p = 0.357), nonadvanced adenoma (5.1% vs 2.6%; p = 0.070), and cancer (0.0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.999) were not significantly increased. The difference in positive rates between the two cohorts (11.5% vs 4.3%; p < 0.001) was primarily due to nonneoplastic findings of no colorectal cancer relevance, such as small hyperplastic polyps, diverticular disease, and false-positive CTC findings.

CONCLUSION

Although the overall CTC-positive and colonoscopy referral rates were higher in the family history cohort, the clinically relevant frequencies of advanced neoplasia and cancer were not sufficiently increased to preclude CTC screening. These findings support the use of CTC as a front-line screening option in adults with a family history of colorectal cancer.

Understanding the Effects of Competition for Constrained Colonoscopy Services with the Introduction of Population-level Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Median wait times for gastroenterology services in Canada exceed consensus-recommended targets and have worsened substantially over the past decade. Meanwhile, efforts to control colorectal cancer have shifted their focus to screening asymptomatic, average-risk individuals. Along with increasing prevalence of colorectal cancer due to an aging population, screening programs are expected to add substantially to the existing burden on colonoscopy services, and create competition for limited services among individuals of varying risk. Failure to understand the effects of operational programmatic screening decisions may cause unintended harm to both screening participants and higher-risk patients, make inefficient use of limited health care resources, and ultimately hinder a program's success.

METHODS

We present a new simulation model (Simulation of Cancer Outcomes for Planning Exercises, or SCOPE) for colorectal cancer screening which, unlike many other colorectal cancer screening models, reflects the effects of competition for limited colonoscopy services between patient groups and can be used to guide planning to ensure adequate resource allocation. We include verification and validation results for the SCOPE model.

RESULTS

A discrete event simulation model was developed based on an epidemiological representation of colorectal cancer in a sample population. Colonoscopy service and screening modules were added to allow observation of screening scenarios and resource considerations. The model reproduces population-based data on prevalence of colorectal cancer by stage, and mortality by cause of death, age, and sex, and attendant demand and wait times for colonoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS

The study model differs from existing screening models in that it explicitly considers the colonoscopy resource implications of screening activities and the impact of constrained resources on screening effectiveness.

Soy isoflavone consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most predominant solid carcinomas in Western countries. However, there is conflicting information on the effects of soy isoflavone on CRC risk. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the association between soy isoflavone consumption and CRC risk in humans using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. A total of 17 epidemiologic studies, which consisted of thirteen case-control and four prospective cohort studies, met the inclusion criteria. Our research findings revealed that soy isoflavone consumption reduced CRC risk (relative risk, RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72-0.85; I(2) = 34.1%, P = 0.024). Based on subgroup analyses, a significant protective effect was observed with soy foods/products (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.89), in Asian populations (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.87), and in case-control studies (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.68-0.84). Therefore, soy isoflavone consumption was significantly associated with a reduced risk of CRC risk, particularly with soy foods/products, in Asian populations, and in case-control studies. However, due to the limited number of studies, other factors may affect this association.

Risk of Advanced Adenomas in Siblings of Individuals With Advanced Adenomas: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The risk of colorectal neoplasms among siblings of patients with advanced adenomas is not clear. We determined the prevalence of advanced adenomas in the siblings of patients with advanced adenomas and compared it with that of siblings of individuals without these lesions.

METHODS

In a blinded, cross-sectional study, colonoscopies were performed (from 2010 through 2014), at 2 hospitals in Hong Kong on 200 asymptomatic siblings of patients with advanced adenomas (exposed; mean age, 58.2 ± 6.3 years; adenomas ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous, or tubulovillous) and 400 age- and sex-matched siblings of subjects with normal findings from colonoscopies and no family history of colorectal cancer (unexposed; mean age, 58.1 ± 6 years). We recruited 1 sibling per family. The primary outcome was prevalence of advanced adenomas.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics (ie, aspirin use, smoking, body mass index, and metabolic diseases) did not differ significantly between exposed and unexposed individuals. The prevalence of advanced adenoma was 11.5% among the exposed subjects and 2.5% among the unexposed subjects (matched odds ratio [mOR] = 6.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.74-13.36; P < .001). The prevalence of adenomas ≥10 mm was higher among exposed than unexposed siblings (10.5% vs 1.8%; mOR = 8.59; 95% CI: 3.44-21.45; P < .001), as was the prevalence of villous adenomas (5.5% vs 1.3% in unexposed; mOR = 6.28; 95% CI: 2.02-19.53; P = .001) and all colorectal adenomas (39.0% vs 19.0% in unexposed; mOR = 3.29; 95% CI: 2.16-5.03; P < .001). Two cancers were detected in exposed siblings and none in unexposed siblings.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cross-sectional study of subjects undergoing colonoscopy in Hong Kong, siblings of individuals with at least 1 advanced adenoma had a 6-fold increased odds of advanced adenoma compared with subjects who had a sibling with a screening colonoscopy with no identified neoplasia. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT01593098.

Adenoma detection rate in high-risk patients differs from that in average-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) are established as quality targets in average-risk (AR) individuals undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopy. Little is known about the ADR in high-risk (HR) individuals undergoing index or surveillance colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare ADR in HR versus AR individuals undergoing colonoscopy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study, tertiary care center.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

We reviewed records of 7357 patients who underwent colonoscopy by 66 multispecialty endoscopists at our institution during the period 2008 to 2009. Both screening and surveillance colonoscopies in AR and HR patients for CRC were studied. HR patients were further divided into 3 subgroups: those with a (1) personal history of polyps (PHP), (2) family history of polyps (FHP), and (3) family history of CRC (FHCRC). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate differences in ADR between the groups after adjusting for possible confounders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

ADR in HR patients.

RESULTS

The study included 4141 patients, of whom 2170 were AR and 1971 were HR. Patients in the HR group were older (64.5 ± 9.1 years vs 59.1 ± 7.9 years, P < .001). HR patients were more likely to have adenomas (30.7% vs 25.6%, P < .001). Adenomas were detected more often in the proximal colon than in the distal colon (29.3% vs 21.0%, P < .001 and 22.8% vs 15.8%, P < .001, respectively). Patients with a PHP had the highest ADR (33.1%, P < .001). However, after adjusting for confounders, HR status was not found to be associated with ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.6; P = .15 for females and 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.2; P = .61 for males). HR females were found to have a 40% greater likelihood of having proximal adenomas than AR females (1.4; 95% CI, 1.01-2; P = .04).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, single tertiary center.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a PHP have a significantly higher ADR compared with AR patients. Defining a minimum target ADR for individuals with a PHP undergoing surveillance colonoscopy is important.

Targeted screening for colorectal cancer in high-risk individuals

The idea of targeted screening for colorectal cancer based on risk profiles originates from its benefits to improve detection yield and optimize screening efficiency. Clinically, it allows individuals to be more aware of their own risk and make informed decisions on screening choice. From a public health perspective, the implementation of risk stratification strategies may better justify utilization of colonoscopic resources, and facilitate resource-planning in the formulation of population-based screening programmes. There are several at-risk groups who should receive earlier screening, and colonoscopy is more preferred. This review summarizes the currently recommended CRC screening strategies among subjects with different risk factors, and introduces existing risk scoring systems. Additional genetic, epidemiological, and clinical parameters may be needed to enhance their performance to risk-stratify screening participants. Future research studies should refine these scoring systems, and explore the adaptability, feasibility, acceptability, and user-friendliness of their use in clinical practice among different population groups.

Family history and the natural history of colorectal cancer: systematic review

PURPOSE

Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risks.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening.

RESULTS

We found high heterogeneity in family-history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than the commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family-history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data regarding the natural history of CRC by family history suggest a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence with respect to tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with a family history of CRC.

CONCLUSION

Stratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future, family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk for CRC.

Rectal cancer: a review

Rectal cancer is the second most common cancer in large intestine. The prevalence and the number of young patients diagnosed with rectal cancer have made it as one of the major health problems in the world. With regard to the improved access to and use of modern screening tools, a number of new cases are diagnosed each year. Considering the location of the rectum and its adjacent organs, management and treatment of rectal tumor is different from tumors located in other parts of the gastrointestinal tract or even the colon. In this article, we will review the current updates on rectal cancer including epidemiology, risk factors, clinical presentations, screening, and staging. Diagnostic methods and latest treatment modalities and approaches will also be discussed in detail.

Increased risk of colorectal neoplasia among family members of patients with colorectal cancer: a population-based study in Utah

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) frequently develops in multiple members of the same families, but more data are needed to prepare effective screening guidelines. We quantified the risk of CRC and adenomas in first-degree relatives (FDRs) and second-degree relatives and first cousins of individuals with CRC, and stratified risk based on age at cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We performed a case-control study of Utah residents, 50-80 years old, who underwent colonoscopy from 1995 through 2009. Index cases (exposed to colonoscopy) were colonoscopy patients with a CRC diagnosis. Age- and sex-matched individuals, unexposed to colonoscopy (controls) were selected to form the comparison groups for determining risk in relatives. Colonoscopy results were linked to cancer and pedigree information from the Utah Population Database to investigate familial aggregation of colorectal neoplasia using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 126,936 patients who underwent a colonoscopy, 3804 were diagnosed with CRC and defined the index cases. FDRs had an increased risk of CRC (hazard rate ratio [HRR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.59-2.03), as did second-degree relatives (HRR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.47) and first cousins (HRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.25), compared with relatives of controls. This risk was greater for FDRs when index patients developed CRC at younger than age 60 years (HRR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.70-2.63), compared with older than age 60 years (HRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.58-1.99). The risk of adenomas (HRR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.66-2.00) and adenomas with villous histology (HRR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.96-3.01) also were increased in FDRs. Three percent of CRCs in FDRs would have been missed if the current guidelines, which stratify screening recommendations by the age of the proband, were strictly followed.

CONCLUSIONS

FDRs, second-degree relatives, and first cousins of patients who undergo colonoscopy and are found to have CRC have a significant increase in the risk of colorectal neoplasia. These data should be considered when establishing CRC screening guidelines for individuals and families.

The interrelationships of the gut microbiome and inflammation in colorectal carcinogenesis

The cause of colorectal cancer (CRC) is multifactorial, with genetic, molecular, inflammatory, and environmental risk factors. Recently, the gut microbiota has been recognized as a new environmental contributor to CRC in both animal models and human studies. An additional interplay of the gut microbiome with inflammation is also evident in studies that have shown that inflammation alone or the presence of bacteria/bacterial metabolites alone is not enough to promote tumorigenesis. Rather, complex interrelationships with the gut microbiome, inflammation, genetics, and other environmental factors are evident in progression of colorectal tumors.

Familial colorectal cancer: a review

Familial colorectal cancer constitutes a heterogeneous group of patients in whom the underlying molecular mechanism is still unknown. Predisposition to a such neoplasms in this setting seems to be due to common low-penetrance genetic components, but the role of genetic testing in clinical practice has to be determined. Although screening guidelines in this moderate-risk population are empiric, data obtained in epidemiologic, meta-analyses and cohort studies and, more recently, the increased risk of advanced adenomas in first degree relatives who underwent screening colonoscopy support the need to include these individuals in specific screening programs. However, data to determine what test to use, how often to use and which organizational strategy to implement are needed. At present, screening uptake in this population is less than optimal; offering the opportunity to access to screening and improving screening uptake is a first significant step.

Risk of colorectal cancer and adenomas in the families of patients with adenomas: a population-based study in Utah

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that individuals with a first-degree relative (FDR) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenoma before age 60 years should undergo colonoscopy starting at age 40 years. The authors quantified the risk of adenomas and CRC in FDRs, second-degree relatives (SDRs), and third-degree relatives (TDRs) of patients diagnosed with adenomas and advanced adenomas.

METHODS

A population-based, retrospective, case-control study was performed of residents of the state of Utah aged 50 years to 80 years who underwent colonoscopy between 1995 and 2009 at Intermountain Healthcare or the University of Utah. Controls were selected from the population of colonoscopy patients who were free of adenomas or CRC and matched to each case based on sex and birth year. Colonoscopy results were linked with cancer and pedigree information from the Utah Population Database to investigate the familial aggregation of adenomas and CRC using Cox regression analysis. The unit of analysis was the relatives of cases and controls.

RESULTS

Of 126,936 patients who underwent colonoscopy, 43,189 had adenomas and 5563 had advanced adenomas and defined the case population. An elevated risk of CRC was found in FDRs (relative risk [RR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.25-1.46), SDRs (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.23) of adenoma cases, and in FDRs of advanced adenoma cases (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.29-2.18) compared with controls. Approximately 10% of CRCs diagnosed in relatives would have been missed if the current screening guidelines were strictly adhered to.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatives of colonoscopy patients with adenomas and advanced adenomas appear to have a significantly elevated risk of developing colorectal neoplasia. These data should be considered when establishing CRC screening guidelines for individuals and their families.

Colorectal cancer surveillance after index colonoscopy: guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology

BACKGROUND

Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care.

METHODS

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines.

RESULTS

The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonoscopy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonoscopy at an interval of five to 10 years.

DISCUSSION

The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.

Increased risk of advanced neoplasms among asymptomatic siblings of patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-most common cancer in Hong Kong. Relatives of patients with CRC have an increased risk of colorectal neoplasm. We assessed the prevalence of advanced neoplasms among asymptomatic siblings of patients with CRC.

METHODS

Patients with CRC were identified from the Prince of Wales Hospital CRC Surgery Registry from 2001 to 2011. Colonoscopies were performed for 374 siblings of patients (age, 52.6 ± 7.4 y) and 374 age- and sex-matched siblings of healthy subjects who had normal colonoscopies and did not have a family history of CRC (controls, 52.7 ± 7.4 y). We identified individuals with advanced neoplasms (defined as cancers or adenomas of at least 10 mm in diameter, high-grade dysplasia, with villous or tubulovillous characteristics).

RESULTS

The prevalence of advanced neoplasms was 7.5% among siblings of patients and 2.9% among controls (matched odds ratio [mOR], 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-6.3; P = .002). The prevalence of adenomas larger than 10 mm was higher among siblings of patients than in controls (5.9% vs 2.1%; mOR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.45-7.66; P = .004), as was the presence of colorectal adenomas (31.0% vs 18.2%; mOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.52-3.17; P < .001). Six cancers were detected among siblings of patients; no cancers were detected in controls. The prevalence of advanced neoplasms among siblings of patients was higher when their index case was female (mOR, 4.95; 95% CI, 1.81-13.55) and had distally located CRC (mOR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.34-7.14).

CONCLUSIONS

In Hong Kong, siblings of patients with CRC have a higher prevalence of advanced neoplasms, including CRC, than siblings of healthy individuals. Screening is indicated in this high-risk population. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00164944.