Risk stratification for advanced proximal colon neoplasm and individualized endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer by a risk-scoring model

Risk Factors for Colorectal Polyps and Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common malignancy in the U.S. and worldwide. Most CRC cases arise from precancerous adenomatous and serrated polyps. Established risk factors for conventional adenomas and CRC include age, male sex, family history, obesity and physical inactivity, and red meat intake. White race and tobacco and alcohol use are important risk factors for serrated polyps, which have a distinct risk factor profile compared to conventional adenomas. A history of abdominopelvic radiation, acromegaly, hereditary hemochromatosis, or prior ureterosigmoidostomy also increases CRC risk. Understanding these risk factors allows for targeted screening of high-risk groups to reduce CRC incidence.

New scoring systems for predicting advanced proximal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults with or without knowing distal colorectal findings: a prospective, cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Models estimating risk for advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia (APN) may be used to select colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test, either prior to knowing distal colorectal findings or afterward. Current models have only fair discrimination and nearly all require knowing distal findings.

OBJECTIVE

Derive and test risk prediction models for APN with and without distal findings.

SETTING

Selected endoscopy centers within central Indiana, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Average-risk persons undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Demographics, personal and family medical history, lifestyle factors and physical measures were linked to the most advanced finding in proximal and distal colorectal segments. For both models, logistic regression identified factors independently associated with APN on a derivation set. Based on equation coefficients, points were assigned to each factor, and risk for APN was examined for each score. Scores with comparable risks were collapsed into risk categories. Both models and their scoring systems were tested on the validation set.

MAIN OUTCOME

APN, defined as any adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥1 cm, one with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or CRC proximal to the descending colon.

RESULTS

Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 ± 6.5 years; 52% women), APN prevalence was 4.5%; 2859 (94.5%) had complete data on risk factors. Independently associated with APN were age, sex, cigarette smoking, cohabitation status, metabolic syndrome, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and physical activity. This model (without distal findings) was well-calibrated (P = 0.62) and had good discrimination (c-statistic = 0.73). In low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups that comprised 21, 58 and 21% of the sample, respectively, APN risks were 1.47% (95% CI, 0.67-2.77%), 3.09% (CI, 2.31-4.04%) and 11.6% (CI, 9.10-14.4%), respectively (P < 0.0001), with no proximal CRCs in the low-risk group and 2 in the intermediate-risk group. When tested in the validation set of 1455, the model retained good metrics (calibration P = 0.85; c-statistic = 0.83), with APN risks in low- (22%), intermediate- (56%) and high-risk (22%) subgroups of 0.62% (CI, 0.08-2.23%) 2.20% (CI, 1.31-3.46%) and 13.0% (CI, 9.50-17.2%), respectively (P < 0.0001). There were no proximal CRCs in the low-risk group, and two in the intermediate-risk group. The model with distal findings performed comparably, with validation set metrics of 0.18 for calibration, 0.76 for discrimination and APN risk (% sample) in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups of 1.1 (69%), 8.3 (22%) and 22.3% (9%).

CONCLUSION

These models stratify large proportions of average-risk persons into clinically meaningful risk groups, and could improve screening efficiency, particularly for noncolonoscopy-based programs.

Derivation and validation of a predictive model for advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults

OBJECTIVE

Knowing risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) could help patients and providers choose among screening tests, improving screening efficiency and uptake. We created a risk prediction model for AN to help decide which test might be preferred, a use not considered for existing models.

DESIGN

Average-risk 50-to-80-year olds undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy were recruited from endoscopy units in Indiana. We measured sociodemographic and physical features, medical and family history and lifestyle factors and linked these to the most advanced finding. We derived a risk equation on two-thirds of the sample and assigned points to each variable to create a risk score. Scores with comparable risks were collapsed into risk categories. The model and score were tested on the remaining sample.

RESULTS

Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 (6.5) years; 52% women), AN prevalence was 9.4%. The 13-variable model (c-statistic=0.77) produced three risk groups with AN risks of 1.5% (95% CI 0.72% to 2.74%), 7.06% (CI 5.89% to 8.38%) and 27.26% (CI 23.47% to 31.30%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (p value <0.001), containing 23%, 59% and 18% of subjects, respectively. In the validation set of 1475 subjects (AN prevalence of 8.4%), model performance was comparable (c-statistic=0.78), with AN risks of 2.73% (CI 1.25% to 5.11%), 5.57% (CI 4.12% to 7.34%) and 25.79% (CI 20.51% to 31.66%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk subgroups, respectively (p<0.001), containing proportions of 23%, 59% and 18%.

CONCLUSION

Among average-risk persons, this model estimates AN risk with high discrimination, identifying a lower risk subgroup that may be screened non-invasively and a higher risk subgroup for which colonoscopy may be preferred. The model could help guide patient-provider discussions of screening options, may increase screening adherence and conserve colonoscopy resources.

Development and Validation of the Asia-Pacific Proximal Colon Neoplasia Risk Score

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients found to be at high risk of advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening should be considered for colonoscopy examination. We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN.

METHODS

We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ² test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.

RESULTS

In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.

Periodontitis is associated with an increased risk for proximal colorectal neoplasms

Interval colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy are known to be highly associated with proximal colorectal neoplasms (CRNs). This cross-sectional study investigated whether periodontitis could be a risk factor for proximal CRNs in healthy individuals. A total of 2504 subjects who received a colonoscopy and dental exam were enrolled in this study. We divided the subjects into the periodontitis group (n = 216) and the control group (n = 2288). The periodontitis group was defined as subjects who had one or more teeth with a probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥4 mm. The prevalence of proximal CRNs was significantly higher in the periodontitis group (25.0%) than in the control group (12.3%) (P < 0.001). Independent risk factors for proximal CRNs in the multivariate analysis were periodontitis, smoking, age, waist circumference, and triglycerides, and those for proximal advanced CRNs were periodontitis, age, and family history of CRC. However, periodontitis was not a risk factor for overall CRNs and advanced CRNs. Periodontitis was associated with an increased risk of proximal CRNs (odds ratio [OR], 1.525; 95% confidence intervals [95% CI], 1.071–2.172) and proximal advanced CRNs (OR, 2.671; 95% CI, 1.088–6.560). Periodontitis might be associated with proximal CRNs and proximal advanced CRNs.

Capability of four sigmoidoscopy-based screening strategies to predict proximal neoplasia in an asymptomatic Chinese population

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A proper colonoscopy referral criterion is essential for flexible sigmoidoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening. We aimed to compare the predictive capability of four existing criteria to detect proximal neoplasia (PN) and advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in a Chinese population.

METHODS

Asymptomatic Chinese participants aged 50-75 years, who received screening colonoscopy, were consecutively recruited. The four criteria included (i) UK flexible sigmoidoscopy; (ii) Italian Screening for COlon REctum; (iii) NORwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial; and (iv) US clinical index. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, and the number of subjects needed to screen (NNS)/refer (NNR) to detect one APN/PN were examined. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 5833 subjects, 749 (12.8%) and 151 (2.6%) cases were found to have PN and APN, respectively. US criteria achieved the highest sensitivity for PN (49%) and APN (66%), while UK criteria attained the highest specificity (93%) for PN/APN. The lowest NNS was required by US criteria for PN (16 vs 19-38) and APN (58 vs 69-86), while the lowest NNR was required by UK criteria for PN (3.2 vs 4.0-4.8) and APN (7 vs 10-16). The receiver operating characteristic of all four criteria was 0.57-0.61 for PN and 0.68-0.70 for APN.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all the four criteria, US criteria had the highest sensitivity and lowest NNS, while UK criteria achieved the highest specificity and lowest NNR. Their limited discriminatory capability highlighted the need for a new score to predict PN/APN in Chinese populations.

Development and validation of a scoring system for advanced colorectal neoplasm in young Korean subjects less than age 50 years

Background/Aims

Colorectal cancer incidence among patients aged ≤50 years is increasing. This study aimed to develop and validate an advanced colorectal neoplasm (ACRN) screening model for young adults aged <50 years in Korea.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 59,575 consecutive asymptomatic Koreans who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2003 and 2012 at a single comprehensive health care center. Young Adult Colorectal Screening (YCS) score was developed as an optimized risk stratification model for ACRN using multivariate analysis and was internally validated. The predictive power and diagnostic performance of YCS score was compared with those of Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) and Korean Colorectal Screening (KCS) scores.

Results

41,702 and 17,873 subjects were randomly allocated into the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively, by examination year. ACRN prevalence was 0.9% in both cohorts. YCS score comprised sex, age, alcohol, smoking, obesity, glucose metabolism abnormality, and family history of CRC, with score ranges of 0 to 10. In the validation cohort, ACRN prevalence was 0.6% in the low-risk tier (score, 0–4), 1.5% in the moderate-risk tier (score, 5–7), and 3.4% in the high-risk tier (score, 8–10). ACRN risk increased 2.5-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8–3.4) in the moderate-risk tier and 5.8-fold (95% CI, 3.4–9.8) in the high-risk tier compared with the low-risk tier. YCS score identified better balanced accuracy (53.9%) than APCS (51.5%) and KCS (50.7%) scores and had relatively good discriminative power (area under the curve=0.660).

Conclusions

YCS score based on clinical and laboratory risk factors was clinically effective and beneficial for predicting ACRN risk and targeting screening colonoscopy in adults aged <50 years.

The Association between Distal Findings and Proximal Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Whether screening participants with distal hyperplastic polyps (HPs) detected by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) should be followed by subsequent colonoscopy is controversial. We evaluated the association between distal HPs and proximal neoplasia (PN)/advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in asymptomatic, average-risk patients.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 30 June 2016 and included all screening studies that examined the relationship between different distal findings and PN/APN. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We pooled absolute risks and odds ratios (ORs) with a random effects meta-analysis. Seven subgroup analyses were performed according to study characteristics. Heterogeneity was characterized with the I² statistics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 studies (104,961 subjects). When compared with normal distal findings, distal HP was not associated with PN (OR=1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.89-1.51, P=0.14, I²=40%) or APN (OR=1.09, 95% CI=0.87-1.36, P=0.39, I²=5%), while subjects with distal non-advanced or advanced adenoma had higher odds of PN/APN. Higher odds of PN/APN were observed for more severe distal lesions. Weaker association between distal and proximal findings was noticed in studies with higher quality, larger sample size, population-based design, and more stringent endoscopy quality-control measures. The Egger's regression tests showed all P>0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal HP is not associated with PN/APN in asymptomatic screening population when compared with normal distal findings. Hence, the presence of distal HP alone detected by FS does not automatically indicate colonoscopy referral for all screening participants, as other risk factors of PN/APN should be considered.

Identifying the optimal strategy for screening of advanced colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To guide selection of optimal screening strategies for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN), we evaluated the screening performances of sigmoidoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and the Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) system, as well as combinations of these techniques.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of participants who had undergone a colonoscopy and FIT as part of a comprehensive health-screening program. Results of sigmoidoscopy were estimated from lesions under colonoscopic examination. The screening strategies were classified as sigmoidoscopy-based, FIT-based, and APCS-based. The sensitivity and reduction of number needed to colonoscope (NNScope) of each screening strategy were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 23 023 participants, 398 (1.7%) had ACRN. To predict the presence of ACRN, sigmoidoscopy was the most effective method (odds ratio [OR]: 22.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.26-29.07), followed by FIT (OR: 7.18, 95% CI: 5.28-9.68) and APCS (high risk [≥4] OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.87-3.58; moderate risk [2-3] OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.28-2.17). Regarding sigmoidoscopy-based strategies, "sigmoidoscopy positive alone" and "sigmoidoscopy positive or APCS ≥4" were optimal strategies (reduction of NNScope: 79-86%; sensitivity: 73-78%). In the case of FIT-based strategies, "FIT positive or APCS ≥4" was the optimal strategy (reduction of NNScope: 72%; sensitivity: 37%). With regard to the APCS system only, "APCS ≥2" and "APCS ≥4" were recommended as sensitivity-preferred and reduction in NNScope-preferred strategies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance in ACRN prediction differs among screening methods (sigmoidoscopy, FIT, and APCS). Among the various single or combined screening strategies, several specific strategies can be chosen depending on medical resources, financial budgets, and screenee preference.

An algorithm to predict advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia in Chinese asymptomatic population

This study aims to develop and validate a new algorithm that incorporates distal colonoscopic findings to predict advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in a Chinese asymptomatic population. We collected age, gender, and colonoscopic findings from a prospectively performed colonoscopy study between 2013 and 2015 in a large hospital-based endoscopy unit in Shanghai, China. Eligible subjects were allocated to a derivation group (n = 3,889) and validation group (n = 1,944) by random sampling. A new index for APN and its cut-off level were evaluated from the derivation cohort by binary logistic regression. The model performance was tested in the validation cohort using area under the curve (AUC). Age, gender, and distal finding were found to be independent predictors of APN in the derivation cohort (p < 0.001). Subjects were categorized into Average Risk (AR) and High Risk (HR) based on a cut-off score of 2. The AUC of the derivation and validation cohorts were 0.801 (0.754-0.847) and 0.722 (0.649-0.794), respectively. In the validation cohort, those in the HR group had a 3.57 fold higher risk of APN when compared with the AR group (P < 0.001), requiring 18 (95% CI = 12-28) follow-up colonoscopies to detect 1 APN. This new clinical index is useful to stratify APN risk in Chinese population.

Prediction of the Risk of a Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasm Using a Novel Scoring System

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to develop and validate a risk score model to estimate the probability of a metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasm (ACRN) at surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively obtained database of 11,042 asymptomatic subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy after a screening colonoscopy was conducted. Subjects were randomly divided into derivation (n = 7730) and validation sets (n = 3312). From the derivation cohort, risk factors for a metachronous ACRN were identified by a multivariable analysis. Risk points were allocated to each risk factor based on the hazard ratio to develop the Metachronous Advanced colorectal neoplasm Prediction Scoring (MAPS) model, the performance of which was assessed in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort, age, male, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp, and a high-risk CRN (ACRN or ≥3 adenomas) at screening colonoscopy were independent risk factors for a metachronous ACRN. These variables were incorporated into the MAPS model, and the risk score ranged 0-17 (high MAPS risk arbitrarily defined as 10-17). At the 3-year surveillance colonoscopy, ACRN was found in 5.1 % of the high MAPS risk group versus 3.9 % of the high-risk CRN group. The colonoscopy number needed to detect one metachronous ACRN at the 3-year surveillance was 19.5 (95 % CI 11.7-33.2) for the high MAPS risk group versus 25.8 (95 % CI 15.4-44.0) for the high-risk CRN group. These findings were similarly confirmed in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our MAPS model based on clinical and colonoscopic parameters effectively predicts the risk of a metachronous ACRN.

Risk of Advanced Neoplasia Using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool

Background

There is no validated, discriminating, and easy-to-apply tool for estimating risk of colorectal neoplasia. We studied whether the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Risk Assessment Tool, which estimates future CRC risk, could estimate current risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia among average-risk persons.

Methods

This cross-sectional study involved individuals age 50 to 80 years undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy. We measured medical and family history, lifestyle information, and physical measures and calculated each person's future CRC risk using the NCI tool's logistic regression equation. We related quintiles of future CRC risk to the current risk of advanced neoplasia (sessile serrated polyp or tubular adenoma ≥ 1 cm, a polyp with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or CRC). All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

For 4457 (98.5%) with complete data (mean age = 57.2 years, SD = 6.6 years, 51.7% women), advanced neoplasia prevalence was 8.26%. Based on quintiles of five-year estimated absolute CRC risk, current risks of advanced neoplasia were 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3% to 3.3%), 4.8% (95% CI = 3.5% to 6.4%), 6.4% (95% CI = 4.9% to 8.2%), 10.0% (95% CI = 8.1% to 12.1%), and 17.6% (95% CI = 15.5% to 20.6%; P < .001). For quintiles of estimated 10-year CRC risk, corresponding current risks for advanced neoplasia were 2.2% (95% CI = 1.4% to 3.5%), 4.8% (95% CI = 3.5% to 6.4%), 6.5% (95% CI = 5.0% to 8.3%), 9.3% (95% CI = 7.5% to 11.4%), and 18.4% (95% CI = 15.9% to 21.1%; P < .001). Among persons with an estimated five-year CRC risk above the median, current risk for advanced neoplasia was 12.8%, compared with 3.7% among those below the median (relative risk = 3.4, 95 CI = 2.7 to 4.4).

Conclusions

The NCI's Risk Assessment Tool, which estimates future CRC risk, may be used to estimate current risk for advanced neoplasia, making it potentially useful for tailoring and improving CRC screening efficiency among average-risk persons.

Derivation and Validation of a Scoring System to Stratify Risk for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Adults: A Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Several methods are recommended equally strongly for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk persons. Risk stratification would enable tailoring of screening within this group, with less invasive tests (sigmoidoscopy or occult blood tests) for lower-risk persons and colonoscopy for higher-risk persons.

OBJECTIVE

To create a risk index for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer and adenomas or serrated polyps ≥1.0 cm, villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia) anywhere in the colorectum, using the most common risk factors for colorectal neoplasia.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Multiple endoscopy units, primarily in the Midwest.

PATIENTS

Persons aged 50 to 80 years undergoing initial screening colonoscopy (December 2004 to September 2011).

MEASUREMENTS

Derivation and validation of a risk index based on points from regression coefficients for age, sex, waist circumference, cigarette smoking, and family history of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Among 2993 persons in the derivation set, prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 9.4%. Risks for advanced neoplasia in persons at very low, low, intermediate, and high risk were 1.92% (95% CI, 0.63% to 4.43%), 4.88% (CI, 3.79% to 6.18%), 9.93% (CI, 8.09% to 12.0%), and 24.9% (CI, 21.1% to 29.1%), respectively (P < 0.001). Sigmoidoscopy to the descending colon in the low-risk groups would have detected 51 of 70 (73% [CI, 61% to 83%]) advanced neoplasms. Among 1467 persons in the validation set, corresponding risks for advanced neoplasia were 1.65% (CI, 0.20% to 5.84%), 3.31% (CI, 2.08% to 4.97%), 10.9% (CI, 8.26% to 14.1%), and 22.3% (CI, 16.9% to 28.5%), respectively (P < 0.001). Sigmoidoscopy would have detected 21 of 24 (87.5% [CI, 68% to 97%]) advanced neoplasms.

LIMITATIONS

Split-sample validation; results apply to first-time screening.

CONCLUSION

This index stratifies risk for advanced neoplasia among average-risk persons by identifying lower-risk groups for which noncolonoscopy strategies may be effective and efficient and a higher-risk group for which colonoscopy may be preferred.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute, Walther Cancer Institute, Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, and Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute.

Factors related to advanced colorectal neoplasm at the Policlínico Peruano Japonés

BACKGROUND

Identifying persons at high risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia can aid in the prevention of colon cancer. Previous studies have shown that some patients can present with proximal advanced neoplasia with no distal findings.

AIMS

To determine the factors related to advanced neoplasia and advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia in a Latin American population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional, observational, analytic study was conducted. It included patients that underwent colonoscopy at the Policlínico Peruano Japonés within the time frame of January and July 2012. Advanced neoplasia was defined as the presence of lesions ≥ 10mm with a villous component, high-grade dysplasia, or carcinoma. The splenic flexure was the limit between the proximal and distal colon.

RESULTS

A total of 846 patients were included in the study. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 108 patients (12.8%) and advanced proximal neoplasia in 55 patients (6.7%), 42 (76.4%) of whom had no neoplasia in the distal colon. Factors related to advanced neoplasia found in the multivariate analysis were age, at the intervals of 50-59 (p=0.019), 60-69 (p=0.016), and ≥ 70 years (0.002) and male sex (p=0.003). In the evaluation of advanced proximal neoplasia, the multivariate analysis identified the 60-69 year age interval (p=0.039) and advanced distal neoplasia (p=0.028) as factors related to advanced proximal disease. The ROC curve established the age cut-off point at 60 years for initially performing colonoscopy, rather than sigmoidoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Age and sex are related to advanced neoplasia, whereas age and advanced distal neoplasia are related to advanced proximal neoplasia.

Prognostic nomograms for prediction of recurrence and survival after curative liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2015;261:939-946. [PMID: 24950276 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000000747]

OBJECTIVE

To develop clinical predictive nomograms generating per-patient numerical probabilities of postoperative recurrence-free and overall survival at specific times.

BACKGROUND

The prognosis after surgical resection is diverse in patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

In a retrospective review, we evaluated data from 1085 mostly early-stage patients newly diagnosed with HCC who were subsequently treated by curative resection. We randomly divided the subjects into derivation (n = 760) and validation (n = 325) samples. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were developed and separately validated on the basis of pre- and postoperative clinical and pathological covariates assessed for association with 2-year recurrence and 5-year HCC-specific death. The discriminatory accuracy of the models was compared with traditional tools by analyzing receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

The statistical nomograms built on the basis of sex, serum albumin, platelet count, microvascular invasion, and calculated tumor volume had good calibration and discriminatory abilities, with c-indices of 0.69 (2-year recurrence) and 0.66 (5-year survival), respectively. These models showed satisfactory goodness-of-fit and discrimination abilities in the independent validation cohort (c-index, 0.66 for 2-year recurrence; and 0.67 for 5-year survival). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve using our methods were greater than those of conventional staging systems in the validation patients, indicating better discriminatory capability (corresponding c-indices, 0.55-0.56; and 0.55-0.61, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our simple user-friendly calculators, which present graphically postsurgical prognostic models for recurrence and survival outcomes in patients with curatively resectable HCC, offer useful guidance to clinicians and patients for individually planning recurrence surveillance and adjuvant therapy.

Development and validation of a clinical score for predicting risk of adenoma at screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Currently, no clinical tools use demographic and risk factor information to predict the risk of finding an adenoma in individuals undergoing colon cancer screening. Such a tool would be valuable for identifying those who would most benefit from screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

We used baseline data from men and women who underwent screening colonoscopy from the randomized, multicenter National Colonoscopy Study (NCS) to develop and validate an adenoma risk model. The study, conducted at three sites in the United States (Minneapolis, MN; Seattle, WA; and Shreveport, LA) asked all participants to complete baseline questionnaires on clinical risk factors and family history. Model parameters estimated from logistic regression yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) used to assess prediction.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-one subjects were included in the development model, and 1,334 in the validation of the risk score. Variables in the prediction of adenoma risk for colonoscopy screening were age (likelihood ratio test for overall contribution to model, P < 0.001), male sex (P < 0.001), body mass index (P < 0.001), family history of at least one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (P = 0.036), and smoking history (P < 0.001). The adjusted AUROCC of 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.74] for the derivation cohort was not statistically significantly different from that in the validation cohort. The adjusted AUROCC for the entire cohort was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.67).

CONCLUSION

We developed and validated a simple well-calibrated risk score.

IMPACT

This tool may be useful for estimating risk of adenomas in screening eligible men and women.

The impact of stratifying by family history in colorectal cancer screening programs

In the province-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Ontario, Canada, individuals with a family history of CRC are offered colonoscopy screening and those without are offered guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT, Hemoccult II). We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the cumulative number of CRC deaths prevented and colonoscopies performed between 2008 and 2038 with this family history-based screening program, compared to a regular gFOBT program. In both programs, we assumed screening uptake increased from 30% (participation level in 2008 before the program was launched) to 60%. We assumed that 11% of the population had a family history, defined as having at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with CRC. The programs offered screening between age 50 and 74 years, every two years for gFOBT, and every ten years for colonoscopy. Compared to opportunistic screening (2008 participation level kept constant at 30%), the gFOBT program cumulatively prevented 6,700 more CRC deaths and required 570,000 additional colonoscopies by 2038. The family history-based screening program increased these numbers to 9,300 and 1,100,000, a 40% and 93% increase, respectively. If biennial gFOBT was replaced with biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), annual Hemoccult Sensa or five-yearly sigmoidoscopy screening, both the added benefits and colonoscopies required would decrease. A biennial gFOBT screening program that identifies individuals with a family history of CRC and recommends them to undergo colonoscopy screening would prevent 40% (range in sensitivity analyses: 20-51%) additional deaths while requiring 93% (range: 43-116%) additional colonoscopies, compared to a regular gFOBT screening program.

Advanced proximal neoplasia of the colon in average-risk adults

BACKGROUND

Estimating risk for advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) based on distal colon findings can help identify asymptomatic persons who should undergo examination of the proximal colon after flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the risk of APN by most advanced distal finding among an average-risk screening population.

DESIGN

Prospective, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Teaching hospital and colorectal cancer screening center.

PATIENTS

A total of 4651 asymptomatic persons at average risk for colorectal cancer aged 50 to 74 years (54.4% women [n = 2529] with a mean [± standard deviation] age of 58.4 ± 6.2 years).

INTERVENTIONS

All participants underwent a complete colonoscopy, including endoscopic removal of all polyps.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

We explored associations between several risk factors and APN. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of APN.

RESULTS

A total of 142 persons (3.1%) had APN, of whom 85 (1.8%) had isolated APN (with no distal findings). APN was associated with older age, a BMI >27 kg/m(2), smoking, distal advanced adenoma and/or cancer, and distal non-advanced tubular adenoma. Those with a distal advanced neoplasm were more than twice as likely to have APN compared with those without distal lesions.

LIMITATIONS

Distal findings used to estimate risk of APN were derived from colonoscopy rather than FS itself.

CONCLUSION

In persons at average risk for colorectal cancer, the prevalence of isolated APN was low (1.8%). Use of distal findings to predict APN may not be the most effective strategy. However, incorporating factors such as age (>65 years), sex, BMI (>27 kg/m(2)), and smoking status, in addition to distal findings, should be considered for tailoring colonoscopy recommendations. Further evaluation of risk stratification approaches in other asymptomatic screening populations is warranted.

A validated tool to predict colorectal neoplasia and inform screening choice for asymptomatic subjects

OBJECTIVE

We aim to develop and validate a clinical scoring system to predict the risks of colorectal neoplasia to better inform screening participants and facilitate their screening test choice.

DESIGN

We recruited 5220 Chinese asymptomatic screening participants who underwent colonoscopy in Hong Kong during 2008-2012. From random sampling of 2000 participants, independent risk factors were evaluated for colorectal neoplasia, defined as adenoma, advanced neoplasia, colorectal cancer or any combination thereof using binary regression analysis. The ORs for significant risk factors were used to develop a scoring system ranging from 0 to 6: 0-2 'average risk' (AR) and 3-6 'high risk' (HR). The other 3220 screening participants prospectively enrolled between 2008 and 2012 for screening colonoscopy formed an independent validation cohort. The performance of the scoring system for predicting colorectal neoplasia was evaluated.

RESULTS

The prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in the derivation and validation cohorts was 31.4% and 30.8%, respectively. Using the scoring system developed, 78.9% and 21.1% in the validation cohort were classified as AR and HR, respectively. The prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in the AR and HR groups was 27.1% and 44.6%, respectively. The subjects in the HR group had 1.65-fold (95% CI 1.49 to 1.83) increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia than the AR group.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoring system based on age, gender, smoking, family history, Body Mass Index and self-reported diabetes is useful in predicting the risk of colorectal neoplasia.