Long-Term Effectiveness of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Women and Men: A Randomized Trial

Assessment of the role of false-positive alerts in computer-aided polyp detection for assistance capabilities

BACKGROUND AND AIM

False positives (FPs) pose a significant challenge in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection during colonoscopy. The study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the impact of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems' FPs on endoscopists.

METHODS

The model's FPs were categorized into four gradients: 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, and 15-20 FPs per minute (FPPM). Fifty-six colonoscopy videos were collected for a crossover study involving 10 endoscopists. Polyp missed rate (PMR) was set as primary outcome. Subsequently, to further verify the impact of FPPM on the assistance capability of AI in clinical environments, a secondary analysis was conducted on a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China from July 1 to October 15, 2020, with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) as primary outcome.

RESULTS

Compared with routine group, CADe reduced PMR when FPPM was less than 5. However, with the continuous increase of FPPM, the beneficial effect of CADe gradually weakens. For secondary analysis of RCT, a total of 956 patients were enrolled. In AI-assisted group, ADR is higher when FPPM ≤ 5 compared with FPPM > 5 (CADe group: 27.78% vs 11.90%; P = 0.014; odds ratio [OR], 0.351; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.152-0.812; COMBO group: 38.40% vs 23.46%, P = 0.029; OR, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.199-0.916). After AI intervention, ADR increased when FPPM ≤ 5 (27.78% vs 14.76%; P = 0.001; OR, 0.399; 95% CI, 0.231-0.690), but no statistically significant difference was found when FPPM > 5 (11.90% vs 14.76%, P = 0.788; OR, 1.111; 95% CI, 0.514-2.403).

CONCLUSION

The level of FPs of CADe does affect its effectiveness as an aid to endoscopists, with its best effect when FPPM is less than 5.

Effects of joint screening for prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer - results from a controlled trial

Background

Although screening is widely used to reduce cancer burden, untargeted cancers are frequently missed after single cancer screening. Joint cancer screening is presumed as a more effective strategy to reduce overall cancer burden.

Methods

Gender-specific screening effects on PLCO cancer incidence, PLCO cancer mortality, all-neoplasms mortality and all-cause mortality were evaluated, and meta-analyses based on gender-specific screening effects were conducted to achieve the pooled effects. The cut-off value of time-dependent receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 10-year combined PLCO cancer risk was used to reclassify participants into low- and high-risk subgroups. Further analyses were conducted to investigate screening effects stratified by risk groups and screening compliance.

Results

After a median follow-up of 10.48 years for incidence and 16.85 years for mortality, a total of 5,506 PLCO cancer cases, 1,845 PLCO cancer deaths, 3,970 all-neoplasms deaths, and 14,221 all-cause deaths were documented in the screening arm, while 6,261, 2,417, 5,091, and 18,516 outcome-specific events in the control arm. Joint cancer screening did not significantly reduce PLCO cancer incidence, but significantly reduced male-specific PLCO cancer mortality (hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals [HR(95%CIs)]: 0.88(0.82, 0.95)) and pooled mortality [0.89(0.84, 0.95)]. More importantly, joint cancer screening significantly reduced both gender-specific all-neoplasm mortality [0.91(0.86, 0.96) for males, 0.91(0.85, 0.98) for females, and 0.91(0.87, 0.95) for meta-analyses] and all-cause mortality [0.90(0.88, 0.93) for male, 0.88(0.85, 0.92) for female, and 0.89(0.87, 0.91) for meta-analyses]. Further analyses showed decreased risks of all-neoplasm mortality was observed with good compliance [0.72(0.67, 0.77) for male and 0.72(0.65, 0.80) for female] and increased risks with poor compliance [1.61(1.40, 1.85) for male and 1.30(1.13, 1.40) for female].

Conclusion

Joint cancer screening could be recommended as a potentially strategy to reduce the overall cancer burden. More compliance, more benefits. However, organizing a joint cancer screening not only requires more ingenious design, but also needs more attentions to the potential harms.

Trial registration

NCT00002540 (Prostate), NCT01696968 (Lung), NCT01696981 (Colorectal), NCT01696994 (Ovarian).

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.

Should we perform sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in people under 45 years?

BACKGROUND

The strategy for preventing colorectal cancer is screening by colonoscopy, which offers a direct way for detection and removal of adenomatous polyps (APs). American College of Gastroenterology guidelines recommend that people aged ≥ 45 years should undergo colonoscopy; however, how to deal with people aged ≤ 45 years is still unknown.

AIM

To compare the prevalence of APs and high-grade neoplasia between the left and right colon in patients ≤ 45 years.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted at a single tertiary III hospital in China. This study included patients aged 18-45 years with undergoing initial colonoscopy dissection and pathological diagnosis AP or high-grade neoplasia between February 2014 and January 2021. The number of APs in the entire colon while screening and post-polypectomy surveillance in following 1-3 years were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 3053 cases were included. The prevalence of APs in the left and right colon was 55.0% and 41.6%, respectively (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.6-2.4; P < 0.05). For APs with high-grade neoplasia, the prevalence was 2.7% and 0.9%, respectively (OR 3.0, 95%CI 2.0-4.6; P < 0.05). Therefore, the prevalence of APs and high-grade neoplasia in the left colon was significantly higher than in the right colon in patients aged ≤ 45 years. There were 327 patients who voluntarily participated in post-polypectomy surveillance in following 1-3 years, and APs were found in 216 cases (66.1%); 170 cases had 1-3 polyps (52.0%) and 46 cases had > 3 polyps (14.1%; OR 0.3, 95%CI 0.1-0.6; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that flexible sigmoidoscopy would be an optimal approach for initial screening in people aged ≤ 45 years and would be a more cost-effective and safe strategy.

Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, being the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Despite the progress in screening, early diagnosis, and treatment, approximately 20%-25% of CRC patients still present with metastatic disease at the time of their initial diagnosis. Furthermore, the burden of disease is still expected to increase, especially in individuals younger than 50 years old, among whom early-onset CRC incidence has been increasing. Screening and early detection are pivotal to improve CRC-related outcomes. It is well established that CRC screening not only reduces incidence, but also decreases deaths from CRC. Diverse screening strategies have proven effective in decreasing both CRC incidence and mortality, though variations in efficacy have been reported across the literature. However, uncertainties persist regarding the optimal screening method, age intervals and periodicity. Moreover, adherence to CRC screening remains globally low. In recent years, emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence, and non-invasive biomarkers, have been developed to overcome these barriers. However, controversy exists over the actual impact of some of the new discoveries on CRC-related outcomes and how to effectively integrate them into daily practice. In this review, we aim to cover the current evidence surrounding CRC screening. We will further critically assess novel approaches under investigation, in an effort to differentiate promising innovations from mere novelties.

Targeted Biodegradable Near-Infrared Fluorescent Nanoparticles for Colorectal Cancer Imaging

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., and early detection and diagnosis are essential for effective treatment. Current methods are inadequate for rapid detection of early disease, revealing flat lesions, and delineating tumor margins with accuracy and molecular specificity. Fluorescence endoscopy can generate wide field-of-view images enabling detection of CRC lesions and margins; increased signal intensity and improved signal-to-noise ratios can increase both speed and sensitivity of cancer detection. For this purpose, we developed targeted near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent silica nanoparticles (FSNs). We tuned their size to 50-200 nm and conjugated their surface with an antibody to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) to prepare CEA-FSNs. The physicochemical properties and biodegradable profiles of CEA-FSN were characterized, and molecular targeting was verified in culture using HT29 (CEA positive) and HCT116 (CEA negative) cells. CEA-FSNs bound to the HT29 cells to a greater extent than to the HCT116 cells, and smaller CEA-FSNs were internalized into HT29 cells more efficiently than larger CEA-FSNs. After intravenous administration of CEA-FSNs, a significantly greater signal was observed from the CEA-positive HT29 than the CEA-negative HCT116 tumors in xenografted mice. In F344-PIRC rats, polyps in the intestine were detected by white-light endoscopy, and NIR fluorescent signals were found in the excised intestinal tissue after topical application of CEA-FSNs. Immunofluorescence imaging of excised tissue sections demonstrated that the particle signals coregistered with signals for both CRC and CEA. These results indicate that CEA-FSNs have potential as a molecular imaging marker for early diagnosis of CRC.

Sex differences in cancer incidence among solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Males have 2-3-fold greater risk of cancer than females at most shared anatomic sites, possibly reflecting enhanced immune surveillance against cancer in females. We examined whether these sex differences remained among immunocompromised adults.

METHODS

Using the Transplant Cancer Match (TCM) study, we estimated the male-to-female incidence rate ratio in TCM (M:F IRRTransplant) for 15 cancer sites diagnosed between 1995 and 2017 using Poisson regression. Male to female IRRs in the general population (M:F IRRGP) were calculated using expected cancer counts from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, standardized to the transplant population on age, race and ethnicity, and diagnosis year. Male to female IRRs were compared using a chi-square test.

RESULTS

Among 343 802 solid organ transplants, 211 206 (61.4%) were among men and 132 596 (38.6%) among women. An excess cancer incidence in males was seen in transplant recipients, but the sex difference was attenuated for cancers of the lip (M:F IRRTransplant: 1.81 vs M:F IRRGP: 3.96; P < .0001), stomach (1.51 vs 2.09; P = .002), colorectum (0.98 vs 1.43; P < .0001), liver (2.39 vs 3.44; P = .002), kidney (1.67 vs 2.24; P < .0001), bladder (2.02 vs 4.19; P < .0001), Kaposi sarcoma (1.79 vs 3.26; P = .0009), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1.34 vs 1.64; P < .0001). The M:F IRRTransplant was not statistically different from the M:F IRRGP for other cancer sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Although male solid organ transplant recipients have higher cancer incidence than female recipients, the attenuation in the male to female ratio for many cancers studied relative to the general population might suggest the importance of immunosurveillance, with some loss of advantage in female recipients due to immunosuppression after transplantation.

Effects of sigmoidoscopy screening (including colonoscopy) on colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Background

This study aimed to investigate the role of endoscopy screening in colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

Up to January 2023, databases were searched for studies related to sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening. The incidence of CRC, and/or CRC mortality were the main observation outcomes.

Results

A total of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2017 to 2022 were included. Among them, four studies used sigmoidoscopy screening and one study involved colonoscopy screening. Statistical results showed that the incidence (RR: 0.78, p < 0.001) and mortality (RR: 0.75, p < 0.001) of CRC were significantly lower in the screening group than in the control group. Further, a subgroup analysis of CRC site indicated that the incidence and mortality of CRC in the screening group were significantly lower than those in the non-screened group, regardless of distal CRC (Incidence: RR: 0.66, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.62, p < 0.001) or proximal CRC (Incidence: RR: 0.94, p = 0.038; Mortality: RR: 0.89, p = 0.038). In terms of gender, compared with the non-screening group, both males (Incidence: RR: 0.73, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.68, p < 0.001) and females (Incidence: RR: 0.85, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.85, p = 0.017), the screening group had a significant decrease in the incidence and mortality of CRC.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that sigmoidoscopy screening (including colonoscopy) could effectively reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC.

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.

Objective

To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.

Intervention

Invitation to endoscopic screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.

Results

This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Gender oncology: recommendations and consensus of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

BACKGROUND

Following the development of gender medicine in the past 20 years, more recently in the field of oncology an increasing amount of evidence suggests gender differences in the epidemiology of cancers, as well as in the response and toxicity associated with therapies. In a gender approach, critical issues related to sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations must also be considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A working group of opinion leaders approved by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has been set up with the aim of drafting a shared document on gender oncology. Through the 'consensus conference' method of the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) variant, the members of the group evaluated statements partly from the scientific literature and partly produced by the experts themselves [good practice points (GPPs)], on the following topics: (i) Healthcare organisation, (ii) Therapy, (iii) Host factors, (iv) Cancer biology, and (v) Communication and social interventions. Finally, in support of each specific topic, they considered it appropriate to present some successful case studies.

RESULTS

A total of 42 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 50 recommendations were extracted. Panel participants were given the opportunity to propose additional evidence from studies not included in the research results, from which 32 statements were extracted, and to make recommendations not derived from literature such as GPPs, four of which have been developed. After an evaluation of relevance by the panel, it was found that 81 recommendations scored >7, while 3 scored between 4 and 6.9, and 2 scored below 4.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus and the document compiled thereafter represent an attempt to evaluate the available scientific evidence on the theme of gender oncology and to suggest standard criteria both for scientific research and for the care of patients in clinical practice that should take gender into account.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: The Role of Clinical Laboratories

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer incidence and mortality. Screening can result in reductions in incidence and mortality, but there are many challenges to uptake and follow-up.

CONTENT

Here, we will review the changing epidemiology of CRC, including increasing trends for early and later onset CRC; evidence to support current and emerging screening strategies, including noninvasive stool and blood-based tests; key challenges to ensuring uptake and high-quality screening; and the critical role that clinical laboratories can have in supporting health system and public health efforts to reduce the burden of CRC on the population.

SUMMARY

Clinical laboratories have the opportunity to play a seminal role in optimizing early detection and prevention of CRC.

Instrumental variables methods reconcile intention-to-screen effects across pragmatic cancer screening trials

Pragmatic cancer screening trials mimic real-world scenarios in which patients and doctors are the ultimate arbiters of treatment. Intention-to-screen (ITS) analyses of such trials maintain randomization-based apples-to-apples comparisons, but differential adherence (the failure of subjects assigned to screening to get screened) makes ITS effects hard to compare across trials and sites. We show how instrumental variables (IV) methods address the nonadherence challenge in a comparison of estimates from 17 sites in five randomized trials measuring screening effects on colorectal cancer incidence. While adherence rates and ITS estimates vary widely across and within trials, IV estimates of per-protocol screening effects are remarkably consistent. An application of simple IV tools, including graphical analysis and formal statistical tests, shows how differential adherence explains variation in ITS impact. Screening compliers are also shown to have demographic characteristics similar to those of the full trial study sample. These findings argue for the clinical relevance of IV estimates of cancer screening effects.

Is flexible sigmoidoscopy screening associated with reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality? a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

The question of whether flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) affects incidence or mortality remains unclear. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to explore this issue.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for cohort studies (CS), case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent FS and reported mortality or incidence of CRC until 11 December 2022. Relative risk (RR) was applied as an estimate of the effect of interest. To combine the RRs and 95% confidence intervals, a random-effects model was used. The quality of the included studies and evidence was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale, the Jadad scale, and the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System."

Results

There were a total of six RCTs and one CS, comprising 702,275 individuals. FS was found to be associated with a 26% RR reduction in CRC incidence (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84) and a 30% RR reduction in CRC mortality (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85). In the incidence subgroup analysis, FS significantly reduced the incidence of CRC compared with non-screening, usual care, and fecal immunochemical testing. Significance was also shown in men, women, distal site, stages III-IV, ages 55-59, and age over 60. In terms of the mortality subgroup analysis, the results were roughly the same as those of incidence.

Conclusion

According to this study, FS might reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. To confirm this finding, further prospective clinical studies should be conducted based on a larger-scale population.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023388925.

Growing Deficit in New Cancer Diagnoses 2 Years Into the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Large decreases in cancer diagnoses were seen early in the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the evolution of these deficits since the end of 2020 and the advent of widespread vaccination is unknown.

METHODS

This study examined data from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) from 1 January 2018 through 28 February 2022 and identified patients with screening or diagnostic procedures or new cancer diagnoses for the four most common cancers in the VA health system: prostate, lung, colorectal, and bladder cancers. Monthly procedures and new diagnoses were calculated, and the pre-COVID era (January 2018 to February 2020) was compared with the COVID era (March 2020 to February 2022).

RESULTS

The study identified 2.5 million patients who underwent a diagnostic or screening procedure related to the four cancers. A new cancer was diagnosed for 317,833 patients. During the first 2 years of the pandemic, VA medical centers performed 13,022 fewer prostate biopsies, 32,348 fewer cystoscopies, and 200,710 fewer colonoscopies than in 2018-2019. These persistent deficits added a cumulative deficit of nearly 19,000 undiagnosed prostate cancers and 3300 to 3700 undiagnosed cancers each for lung, colon, and bladder. Decreased diagnostic and screening procedures correlated with decreased new diagnoses of cancer, particularly cancer of the prostate (R = 0.44) and bladder (R = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

Disruptions in new diagnoses of four common cancers (prostate, lung, bladder, and colorectal) seen early in the COVID-19 pandemic have persisted for 2 years. Although reductions improved from the early pandemic, new reductions during the Delta and Omicron waves demonstrate the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care.

Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.

Objective

To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.

Data Sources

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.

Study Selection

Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.

Results

In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.

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.

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Iron Deficiency Anemia

In the United States, colorectal cancer has the fourth highest amount of annual new cancer cases per year between 2014 and 2018. In this article, the authors review the data and guidelines supporting effective direct visualization and stool-based testing methods of colon cancer screening along with work-up and management of Iron Deficiency Anemia.

Is there a place for sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening? A systematic review and critical appraisal of cost-effectiveness models

INTRODUCTION

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose. Sigmoidoscopy is an alternative screening measure with a strong evidence base. Due to its distinct characteristics, it might be preferred by subgroups. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening compared to other screening methods and to identify influencing parameters.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for the time frame 01/2010-01/2023 was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, NHS EED, as well as the Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Full economic analyses examining sigmoidoscopy as a screening measure for the general population at average risk for CRC were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. All included studies were critically assessed based on a questionnaire for modelling studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies are included in the review. Compared to no screening, sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective screening strategy for CRC. When modelled as a single measure strategy, sigmoidoscopy is mostly dominated by colonoscopy or modern stool tests. When combined with annual stool testing, sigmoidoscopy in 5-year intervals is more effective and less costly than the respective strategies alone. The results of the studies are influenced by varying assumptions on adherence, costs, and test characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The combination of sigmoidoscopy and stool testing represents a cost-effective screening strategy that has not received much attention in current guidelines. Further research is needed that goes beyond a narrow focus on screening technology and models different, preference-based participation behavior in subgroups.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians (Version 2)

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience is all clinicians. The population is asymptomatic adults at average risk for CRC.

METHODS

This updated guidance statement was developed using recently published and critically appraised clinical guidelines from national guideline developers since the publication of the American College of Physicians' 2019 guidance statement, "Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults." The authors searched for national guidelines from the United States and other countries published in English using PubMed and the Guidelines International Network library from 1 January 2018 to 24 April 2023. The authors also searched for updates of guidelines included in the first version of our guidance statement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. Two guidelines were selected for adoption and adaptation by raters on the basis of the highest average overall AGREE II quality scores. The evidence reviews and modeling studies for these 2 guidelines were also used to synthesize the evidence of diagnostic test accuracy, effectiveness, and harms of CRC screening interventions and to develop our guidance statements.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1

Clinicians should start screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults at age 50 years.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2

Clinicians should consider not screening asymptomatic average-risk adults between the ages of 45 to 49 years. Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3

Clinicians should stop screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults older than 75 years or in asymptomatic average-risk adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4A

Clinicians should select a screening test for colorectal cancer in consultation with their patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient values and preferences.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4B

Clinicians should select among a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years as a screening test for colorectal cancer.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4C

Clinicians should not use stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum screening tests for colorectal cancer.

Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to estimate the effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)-based screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality by conducting an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library searched for RCTs from database inception to December 2022. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RevMan 5.4 was used for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 457, 871 patients were included. This meta-analysis revealed that FS-based screening was associated with a 20% relative risk reduction in CRC incidence [RR = 0.80; 95% CI (0.75, 0.86); P < 0.00001], and a 24% reduction in CRC mortality [RR = 0.76; 95% CI (0.70, 0.82); P < 0.00001]. In addition, this meta-analysis revealed that FS-based screening reduced the incidence[RR = 0.68; 95% CI (0.60, 0.77); P < 0.00001] and mortality[RR = 0.64; 95% CI (0.49, 0.83); P = 0.0007] of distal CRC, but had no significant effect on proximal colon cancer.

CONCLUSION

FS-based screening appeared to be effective in reducing distal CRC incidence and mortality in patients at average risk compared to no intervention, but had no significant effect on proximal colon cancer.

Increasing the accuracy of colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue, being responsible for nearly 10% of all cancer-related deaths. Since CRC is often an asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic disease until it reaches advanced stages, screening is crucial for the diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions or early CRC.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize the literature evidence on currently available CRC screening tools, with their pros and cons, focusing on the level of accuracy reached by each test over time. We also provide an overview of novel technologies and scientific advances that are currently being investigated and that in the future may represent real game-changers in the field of CRC screening.

EXPERT OPINION

We suggest that best screening modalities are annual or biennial FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years. We believe that the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-tools in the CRC screening field could lead to a significant improvement of the screening efficacy in reducing CRC incidence and mortality in the future. More resources should be put into implementing CRC programmes and support research project to further increase accuracy of CRC screening tests and strategies.

Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening on All-Cause and CRC-Specific Mortality Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The aim of this study was to pool and compare all-cause and colorectal cancer (CRC) specific mortality reduction of CRC screening in randomized control trials (RCTs) and simulation models, and to determine factors that influence screening effectiveness. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies. Multi-use simulation models or RCTs that compared the mortality of CRC screening with no screening in general population were included. CRC-specific and all-cause mortality rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by a bivariate random model. (3) Results: 10 RCTs and 47 model studies were retrieved. The pooled CRC-specific mortality rate ratios in RCTs were 0.88 (0.80, 0.96) and 0.76 (0.68, 0.84) for guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) and single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening, respectively. For the model studies, the rate ratios were 0.45 (0.39, 0.51) for biennial fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), 0.31 (0.28, 0.34) for biennial gFOBT, 0.61 (0.53, 0.72) for single FS, 0.27 (0.21, 0.35) for 10-yearly colonoscopy, and 0.35 (0.29, 0.42) for 5-yearly FS. The CRC-specific mortality reduction of gFOBT increased with higher adherence in both studies (RCT: 0.78 (0.68, 0.89) vs. 0.92 (0.87, 0.98), model: 0.30 (0.28, 0.33) vs. 0.92 (0.51, 1.63)). Model studies showed a 0.62-1.1% all-cause mortality reduction with single FS screening. (4) Conclusions: Based on RCTs and model studies, biennial FIT/gFOBT, single and 5-yearly FS, and 10-yearly colonoscopy screening significantly reduces CRC-specific mortality. The model estimates are much higher than in RCTs, because the simulated biennial gFOBT assumes higher adherence. The effectiveness of screening increases at younger screening initiation ages and higher adherences.

Reducing disparities and achieving health equity in colorectal cancer screening

Increases in colorectal cancer screening are linked to the declining incidence of the disease over the past three decades. These favorable trends, however, are not observed in marginalized racial and ethnic populations with disproportionately lower rates of screening, higher disease incidence, and increased mortality despite advances in health technology and policy. This review describes the differences in screening uptake and test selection amongst racial and ethnic groups, discusses known obstacles and facilitators that impact screening, and highlights existing frameworks developed to achieve health equity in colorectal cancer screening.

Making colonoscopy-based screening more efficient: A "gateopener" approach

Screening colonoscopy for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) is mostly used inefficiently. Here, we assessed the potential of an innovative approach to colonoscopy-based screening, by use of a single, low threshold fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as a "gateopener" for screening colonoscopy. Using COSIMO, a validated simulation model, we modeled scenarios including either direct invitation to screening colonoscopy or an alternative approach involving mailing a single ("gateopener") FIT along with an invitation to colonoscopy contingent on a FIT value above a low threshold yielding a 50% positivity rate (ie, every other pretest will be positive). Under plausible assumptions on screening offer adherence, we found that such "gateopener screening" (use of screening colonoscopy contingent on a positive, low threshold gateopener FIT) approximately doubled cancer detection rates vs conventional screening. In those spared from screening colonoscopy due to a negative gateopener FIT pretest, numbers needed to screen were 10-times higher vs those for individuals with a positive FIT, peaking in >2000 and >3800 (hypothetically) needed colonoscopies to detect one case of cancer in men and women, respectively. Gateopener screening resulted in 42%-51% and 59%-65% more prevented CRC cases and deaths, respectively. In summary, by directing colonoscopy capacities to those most likely to benefit, offering screening colonoscopy contingent on a "gateopener" low-threshold FIT would substantially enhance efficiency of colonoscopy screening.

Gender Medicine in Clinical Radiology Practice

Gender Medicine is rapidly emerging as a branch of medicine that studies how many diseases common to men and women differ in terms of prevention, clinical manifestations, diagnostic-therapeutic approach, prognosis, and psychological and social impact. Nowadays, the presentation and identification of many pathological conditions pose unique diagnostic challenges. However, women have always been paradoxically underestimated in epidemiological studies, drug trials, as well as clinical trials, so many clinical conditions affecting the female population are often underestimated and/or delayed and may result in inadequate clinical management. Knowing and valuing these differences in healthcare, thus taking into account individual variability, will make it possible to ensure that each individual receives the best care through the personalization of therapies, the guarantee of diagnostic-therapeutic pathways declined according to gender, as well as through the promotion of gender-specific prevention initiatives. This article aims to assess potential gender differences in clinical-radiological practice extracted from the literature and their impact on health and healthcare. Indeed, in this context, radiomics and radiogenomics are rapidly emerging as new frontiers of imaging in precision medicine. The development of clinical practice support tools supported by artificial intelligence allows through quantitative analysis to characterize tissues noninvasively with the ultimate goal of extracting directly from images indications of disease aggressiveness, prognosis, and therapeutic response. The integration of quantitative data with gene expression and patient clinical data, with the help of structured reporting as well, will in the near future give rise to decision support models for clinical practice that will hopefully improve diagnostic accuracy and prognostic power as well as ensure a more advanced level of precision medicine.

15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality.

DESIGN

Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening.

SETTING

Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment.

INTERVENTION

Sigmoidoscopy screening.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening.

RESULTS

Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81]; P = 0.032 for difference) and mortality (MRR for women, 0.91 [CI, 0.77 to 1.17]; MRR for men, 0.73 [CI, 0.64 to 0.83]; P = 0.025 for difference). There was no statistically significant difference in screening effect between persons aged 55 to 59 years and those aged 60 to 64 years.

LIMITATION

Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations.

CONCLUSION

This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Health Fund of South-East Norway.

Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Prevalence, Perceived Barriers, and Preference for Screening Colonoscopy Among Hospitalized Women

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening persist despite screening campaigns, especially among women. This study explores the prevalence, preferences, and barriers associated with colorectal cancer screening and evaluates the effect of an inpatient intervention (one-on-one bedside education and handout about colorectal cancer) on screening adherence among hospitalized women.

METHODS

A prospective intervention study among 510 hospitalized women, who are cancer-free (except for skin cancer) at enrollment, aged between 50 and 75 years was conducted at an academic center. Socio-demographic, family history, and medical comorbidities data were collected for all patients. A post-hospitalization follow-up survey determined the effect of inpatient intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence. Unpaired t-test and chi-square tests were used to compare characteristics, perspectives, and preferences for screening among adherent and non-adherent groups.

RESULTS

Mean age was 60.5 years, 45% reported an annual household income of <$20 000, 36% of women were African American, 27% of women were overdue for colorectal cancer screening, and 33% never had a screening colonoscopy. The most frequently reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening were "I have other problems more important than getting a colonoscopy," "No transportation to get to the test," and "Not counseled by primary care provider." Sixty-six percent of the non-adherent women would agree to have an inpatient screening colonoscopy if offered.

CONCLUSION

A significant number of hospitalized women are non-adherent to colorectal cancer screening, while the educational intervention was partially successful in enhancing colorectal cancer screening, most hospitalized women remained non-adherent after hospitalization. A majority of these women were amenable to inpatient screening colonoscopy if offered during a hospital stay.

Association Between Socioeconomic and Insurance Status and Delayed Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Cancers

INTRODUCTION

Association between socioeconomic status (SES) and stage at diagnosis in gastrointestinal (GI) cancers is poorly described. Relationship between low SES and stage at diagnosis as well as the mediating role of insurance status (IS) was examined.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for esophageal, gastric, liver, biliary, pancreatic, colon, and rectal cancers diagnosed in 2012-2016. Relationship between census-tract SES index quintiles and late diagnosis (distant disease at diagnosis) was examined. Uni and multivariable logistic regressions were performed. Mediation analyses were conducted to determine the degree to which IS (private/Medicare versus Medicaid/uninsured) mediates the relationship between SES and late diagnosis of cancer.

RESULTS

Analysis included 236,713 adult patients from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results areas. In univariable analysis, lowest SES quintile was significantly associated with late diagnosis for all cancers except gastric and biliary cancers. In multivariable analysis controlling for age, gender, marital status and race, this association remained significant for liver (odds ratio (OR) 1.41 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-1.58]), pancreatic (OR 1.13 [95% CI 1.06-1.21]), and rectal (OR 1.31 [95% CI 1.20-1.42]) cancers. Further controlling for IS showed the largest effect size reduction for rectal cancer (OR 1.18 [95% CI 1.09-1.29]), with IS mediating 36.5% (P < 0.0001) of SES effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Low SES is an independent risk factor for late diagnosis in liver, pancreas, and rectal cancers. Insurance is not a critical mediator of difference by SES for most GI cancers, with the exception of rectal cancer. Further research is needed to understand factors beyond IS that can account for SES differences in late diagnosis for GI cancers. Insurance related differences for rectal cancer deserves further attention.

Overall and stage-specific survival of patients with screen-detected colorectal cancer in European countries: A population-based study in 9 countries

Background

An increasing proportion of colorectal cancers (CRCs) are detected through screening due to the availability of organised population-based programmes. We aimed to analyse survival probabilities of patients with screen-detected CRC in European countries.

Methods

Data from CRC patients were obtained from 16 population-based cancer registries in nine European countries. We included patients with cancer diagnosed from the year organised CRC screening programmes were introduced until the most recent year with available data at the time of analysis, whose ages at diagnosis fell into the age groups targeted by screening. Patients were followed up with regards to vital status until 2016-2020 across the various countries. Overall and CRC-specific survival were analysed by mode of detection and stage at diagnosis for all countries combined and for each country separately using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Findings

We included data from 228 134 patients, of whom 134 597 (aged 60-69 years at diagnosis targeted by screening in all countries) were considered in analyses for all countries combined. 22·3% (38 080/134 597) of patients had cancer detected through screening. Most screen-detected cancers were found at stages I-II (65·6% [12 772/19 469 included in stage-specific analyses]), while the majority of non-screen-detected cancers were found at stages III-IV (56·4% [31 882/56 543 included in stage-specific analyses]). Five-year overall and CRC-specific survival rates for patients with screen-detected cancer were 83·4% (95% CI 82·9-83·9) and 89·2% (88·8-89·7), respectively; for patients with non-screen-detected cancer, they were much lower (57·5% [57·2-57·8] and 65·7% [65·4-66·1], respectively). The favourable survival of patients with screen-detected cancer was also seen within each stage – five-year overall survival rates for patients with screen-detected stage I, II, III, and IV cancers were 92.4% (95% CI 91·6-93·1), 87·9% (86·6-89·1), 80·7% (79·3-82·0), and 32·3 (29·4-35·2), respectively. These patterns were also consistently seen for each individual country.

Interpretation

Patients with cancer diagnosed at screening have a very favourable prognosis. In the rare case of detection of advanced stage cancer, survival probabilities are still much higher than those commonly reported for all patients regardless of mode of detection. Although these results cannot be taken to quantify screening effects, they provide useful and encouraging information for patients with screen-detected CRC and their physicians.

Funding

This study was supported in part by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the German Cancer Aid.

How Would You Screen This Patient for Colorectal Cancer? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death for men and women in the United States, with an estimated 52 580 people expected to die in 2022. Most frequently, CRC is diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. However, among persons younger than 50 years, incidence rates have been increasing since the mid-1990s. In 2021, partially because of the rising incidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screening for adults aged 45 to 49 years (Grade B recommendation). Options for CRC screening include stool-based and direct visualization tests. The USPSTF did not recommend a specific screening test; rather, its guidance was to select a test after a discussion with the patient. Here, a primary care physician and a gastroenterologist discuss the recommendation to begin CRC screening at age 45, review options for CRC screening, and discuss how to choose among the available options.

Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review

Robotic colonoscopes could potentially provide a comfortable, less painful and safer alternative to standard colonoscopy. Recent exciting developments in this field are pushing the boundaries to what is possible in the future. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current work in robotic colonoscopes including self-propelled, steerable and disposable endoscopes that could be alternatives to standard colonoscopy. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these systems currently in development and highlight the technical readiness of each system to help the reader understand where and when such systems may be available for routine clinical use and get an idea of where and in which situation they can best be deployed.

Normal gastrointestinal mucosa at biopsy and subsequent cancer risk: nationwide population-based, sibling-controlled cohort study

Background

While individuals with normal gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa on endoscopy have a lower risk of colorectal cancer, risks of other cancers remain unexplored.

Methods

Through Sweden’s 28 pathology departments, we identified 415,092 individuals with a first GI biopsy with histologically normal mucosa during 1965–2016 and no prior cancer. These individuals were compared to 1,939,215 matched reference individuals from the general population. Follow-up began 6 months after biopsy, and incident cancer data were retrieved from the Swedish Cancer Register. Flexible parametric model was applied to estimate cumulative incidences and hazard ratios (HRs) for cancers. We also used full siblings (n = 441,534) as a secondary comparison group.

Results

During a median follow-up of 10.9 years, 40,935 individuals with normal mucosa (incidence rate: 82.74 per 10,000 person-years) and 177,350 reference individuals (incidence rate: 75.26) developed cancer. Restricting the data to individuals where follow-up revealed no cancer in the first 6 months, we still observed an increased risk of any cancer in those with a histologically normal mucosa (average HR = 1.07; 95%CI = 1.06–1.09). Although the HR for any and specific cancers decreased shortly after biopsy, we observed a long-term excess risk of any cancer, with an HR of 1.08 (95%CI = 1.05–1.12) and a cumulative incidence difference of 0.93% (95%CI = 0.61%-1.25%) at 30 years after biopsy. An elevated risk of gastric cancer, lung cancer, and hematological malignancy (including lymphoproliferative malignancy) was also observed at 20 or 30 years since biopsy. Sibling analyses confirmed the above findings.

Conclusion

Individuals with a histologically normal mucosa at biopsy and where follow-up revealed no cancer in the first 6 months, may still be at increased risk of cancer, although excess risks are small.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09992-5.

Proportion and stage distribution of screen-detected and non-screen-detected colorectal cancer in nine European countries: an international, population-based study

BACKGROUND

The effects of recently implemented colorectal cancer screening programmes in Europe on colorectal cancer mortality will take several years to be fully known. We aimed to analyse the characteristics and parameters of screening programmes, proportions of colorectal cancers detected through screening, and stage distribution in screen-detected and non-screen-detected colorectal cancers to provide a timely assessment of the potential effects of screening programmes in several European countries.

METHODS

We conducted this population-based study in nine European countries for which data on mode of detection were available (Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Spain). Data from 16 population-based cancer registries were included. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from the year that organised colorectal cancer screening programmes were implemented in each country until the latest year with available data at the time of analysis, and if their age at diagnosis fell within the age groups targeted by the programmes. Data collected included sex, age at diagnosis, date of diagnosis, topography, morphology, clinical and pathological TNM information based on the edition in place at time of diagnosis, and mode of detection (ie, screen detected or non-screen detected). If stage information was not available, patients were not included in stage-specific analyses. The primary outcome was proportion and stage distribution of screen-detected versus non-screen detected colorectal cancers.

FINDINGS

228 667 colorectal cancer cases were included in the analyses. Proportions of screen-detected cancers varied widely across countries and regions. The highest proportions (40-60%) were found in Slovenia and the Basque Country in Spain, where FIT-based programmes were fully rolled out, and participation rates were higher than 50%. A similar proportion of screen-detected cancers was also found for the Netherlands in 2015, where participation was over 70%, even though the programme had not yet been fully rolled out to all age groups. In most other countries and regions, proportions of screen-detected cancers were below 30%. Compared with non-screen-detected cancers, screen-detected cancers were much more often found in the distal colon (range 34·5-51·1% screen detected vs 26·4-35·7% non-screen detected) and less often in the proximal colon (19·5-29·9% screen detected vs 24·9-32·8% non-screen detected) p≤0·02 for each country, more often at stage I (35·7-52·7% screen detected vs 13·2-24·9% non-screen detected), and less often at stage IV (5·8-12·5% screen detected vs 22·5-31·9% non-screen detected) p<0·0001 for each country.

INTERPRETATION

The proportion of colorectal cancer cases detected by screening varied widely between countries. However, in all countries, screen-detected cancers had a more favourable stage distribution than cancers detected otherwise. There is still much need and scope for improving early detection of cancer across all segments of the colorectum, and particularly in the proximal colon and rectum.

FUNDING

Deutsche Krebshilfe.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. 2021 US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines and available evidence support routine screening from ages 45 to 75, and individualized consideration of screening ages 76 to 85. USPSTF guidelines recommend annual guaiac fecal occult blood testing, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), annual to every 3-year multitarget stool DNA-FIT, every 5-year sigmoidoscopy, every 10-year sigmoidoscopy with annual FIT, every 5-year computed tomographic colonography, and every 10-year colonoscopy as options for screening. The "best test is the one that gets done."

A comparative examination of colorectal cancer burden in European Union, 1990-2019: Estimates from Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study

AIM

This study examines the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) in European Union (EU) countries in the last 3 decades.

METHODS

The data pertaining to CRC burden were procured from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study for 28 EU countries (including United Kingdom) for the period 1990-2019. The age-standardized rates of CRC were utilized to compare the country-wise burden and joinpoint regression models were applied to examine the trends.

RESULTS

In EU, CRC incident cases increased by 70.2% from 261,306 to 444,872 and deaths increased by 36.8% from 155,823 to 213,174 between 1990 and 2019. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) increased by 11.9% from 37.8/100,000 to 42.3/100,000 between 1990 and 2019; in contrast, the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) decreased by 16.9% (1990: 22.4/100,000; 2019: 18.6/100,000) and age-standardized DALYs rate (ASDALR) decreased by 18.6% (1990: 472.9/100,000; 2019: 385.1/100,000) in the study period. In 2019, Hungary was the leading country in terms of ASMR (28.6/100,000) and ASDALR (630.3/100,000), and Lithuania (29.2/100,000) had the lowest ASIR, whereas Finland had the lowest ASMR (12.3/100,000) and ASDALR (253.6/100,000) in 2019.

CONCLUSION

CRC incidence is increasing in EU and mortality rates, although decreasing, are still unacceptably high. CRC control efforts must be focused around early detection using screening and prevention through reduction of modifiable risk factors. Increasing CRC incidence rates in young adults in recent years requires more research to pinpoint risk factors, and there must be more awareness of this recent development among general public and clinicians.

The global, regional, and national burden and quality of care index (QCI) of colorectal cancer; a global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990-2019

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the five most incident and lethal cancers in world and its burden varies between countries and sexes. We aimed to present a comprehensive measure called the quality of care index (QCI) to evaluate the inequity and healthcare quality of care regarding CRC by sex and location.

Methods

Data on the burden of CRC were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease study 2019. It was transformed to four ratios, including mortality-to-incidence, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)-to-prevalence, prevalence-to-incidence, and years of life lost (YLLs)-to-years lived with disability (YLDs). Principal component analysis was implemented on the four ratios and the most influential component was considered as QCI with a score ranging from zero to 100, for which higher scores represented better quality of care. Gender Disparity Ratio (GDR) was calculated by dividing QCI for females by males.

Results

The global incidence and death numbers of CRC were 2,166,168 (95% uncertainty interval: 1,996,298–2,342,842) and 1,085,797 (1,002,795–1,149,679) in 2019, respectively. Globally, QCI and GDR values were 77.6 and 1.0 respectively in 2019. There was a positive association between the level of quality of care and socio-demographic index (SDI) quintiles. Region of the Americas and African Region had the highest and lowest QCI values, respectively (84.4 vs. 23.6). The QCI values started decreasing beyond the age of 75 in 2019 worldwide.

Conclusion

There is heterogeneity in QCI between SDI quintiles. More attention should be paid to people aged more than 75 years old because of the lower quality of care in this group.

A Deep Learning Approach for Detecting Colorectal Cancer via Raman Spectra

Objective and Impact Statement. Distinguishing tumors from normal tissues is vital in the intraoperative diagnosis and pathological examination. In this work, we propose to utilize Raman spectroscopy as a novel modality in surgery to detect colorectal cancer tissues. Introduction. Raman spectra can reflect the substance components of the target tissues. However, the feature peak is slight and hard to detect due to environmental noise. Collecting a high-quality Raman spectroscopy dataset and developing effective deep learning detection methods are possibly viable approaches. Methods. First, we collect a large Raman spectroscopy dataset from 26 colorectal cancer patients with the Raman shift ranging from 385 to 1545 cm  - 1 . Second, a one-dimensional residual convolutional neural network (1D-ResNet) architecture is designed to classify the tumor tissues of colorectal cancer. Third, we visualize and interpret the fingerprint peaks found by our deep learning model. Results. Experimental results show that our deep learning method achieves 98.5% accuracy in the detection of colorectal cancer and outperforms traditional methods. Conclusion. Overall, Raman spectra are a novel modality for clinical detection of colorectal cancer. Our proposed ensemble 1D-ResNet could effectively classify the Raman spectra obtained from colorectal tumor tissues or normal tissues.

Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) imposes significant morbidity and mortality, yet it is also largely preventable with evidence-based screening strategies. In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated guidance, recommending screening begin at age 45 for average-risk individuals to reduce CRC incidence and mortality in the United States (US). The Task Force recommends screening with one of several screening strategies: high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HSgFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (virtual colonoscopy), flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FIT, or traditional colonoscopy. In addition to these recommended options, there are several emerging and novel CRC screening modalities that are not yet approved for first-line screening in average-risk individuals. These include blood-based screening or “liquid biopsy,” colon capsule endoscopy, urinary metabolomics, and stool-based microbiome testing for the detection of colorectal polyps and/or CRC. In order to maximize CRC screening uptake in the US, patients and providers should engage in informed decision-making about the benefits and limitations of recommended screening options to determine the most appropriate screening test. Factors to consider include the invasiveness of the test, test performance, screening interval, accessibility, and cost. In addition, health systems should have a programmatic approach to CRC screening, which may include evidence-based strategies such as patient education, provider education, mailed screening outreach, and/or patient navigation, to maximize screening participation.

Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of water-assisted colonoscopy is well established, the role of water immersion sigmoidoscopy (WIS) remains unclear. We compared WIS with carbon dioxide insufflation sigmoidoscopy (CO₂S) on patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a single-center quality improvement program about patients undergoing unsedated screening sigmoidoscopy (WIS and CO₂S) between May 2019 and January 2020. Outcomes studied included the following: Rates of severe pain <17% (score of ≥7 on a numeric rating scale of 0-10, and on a Likert scale), willingness to repeat the procedure without sedation, adequate bowel cleanliness >75% (proportion of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score: 2-3) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

In total, 234 patients (111 WIS; 123 CO₂S) were included. All patients were aged 58 years and 58.9% were female; baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of severe pain (WIS: 16.5%, CO₂S: 13.8%; P = 0.586), willingness to repeat the unsedated procedure (WIS: 82.3%, CO₂S: 84.5%; P = 0.713), adequate bowel cleanliness (WIS: 78.4%, CO₂S: 78%, P = 0.999) or ADR (WIS: 25.2%, CO₂S: 16.3%; P = 0.106) between groups. However, average procedure times were longer with WIS (9.06 min) compared to CO₂S (6.45 min; P < 0.001). Overall, 29.6% of women reported that they would repeat sigmoidoscopy only if sedated.

CONCLUSIONS

WIS does not ameliorate tolerance to and quality of sigmoidoscopy screening measured by several scores. When offered a choice, the women's willingness to repeat WIS or CO₂S without sedation was poor and raises concern on the opportunity of screening sigmoidoscopy without sedation in these subjects.

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men

BACKGROUND

Women and men with colorectal adenomas are at increased risk of colorectal cancer and colonoscopic surveillance is recommended. However, the long-term cancer risk remains unknown.

AIMS

To investigate colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men METHODS: We identified all individuals who had adenomas removed in Norway from 1993 to 2007, with follow-up through 2018. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and incidence-based mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for colorectal cancer in women and men using the female and male population for comparison. We defined high-risk adenomas as ≥2 adenomas, villous component, or high-grade dysplasia.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 40 293 individuals. During median follow-up of 13.0 years, 1079 women (5.5%) and 866 men (4.2%) developed colorectal cancer; 328 women (1.7%) and 275 men (1.3%) died of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer incidence was more increased in women (SIR 1.64, 95% CI 1.54-1.74) than in men (SIR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19). Colorectal cancer mortality was increased in women (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26) and reduced in men (SMR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89). Women with high-risk adenomas had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death (SMR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19-1.57); women with low-risk adenomas (SMR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.07) and men with high-risk adenomas had a similar risk (SMR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.04), while men with low-risk adenomas had reduced risk (SMR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

After adenoma removal, women had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death, while men had reduced risk, compared to the general female and male populations. Sex-specific surveillance recommendations after adenoma removal should be considered.

Chinese consensus on prevention of colorectal neoplasia (2021, Shanghai)

Most patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) were diagnosed in advanced stage and the prognosis is poor. Therefore, early detection and prevention of CRC are very important. As with other cancers, there is also the tertiary prevention for CRC. The primary prevention is etiological prevention, which is mainly the treatment of adenoma or inflammation for preventing the development into cancer. The secondary prevention is the early diagnosis and early treatment for avoiding progressing to advanced cancer. The tertiary prevention belongs to the broad category of prevention, mainly for advanced CRC, through surgical treatment and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy for preventing tumor recurrence or metastasis. This consensus is based on the recent domestic and international consensus guidelines and the latest progress of international researches in the past five years. This consensus opinion seminar was hosted by the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology and Cancer Collaboration Group of Chinese Society of Gastroenterology, and was organized by the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology & Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The consensus opinion contains 60 statement clauses, the standard and basis of the evidence-based medicine grade and voting grade of the statement strictly complied with the relevant international regulations and practice.

Long-Term Follow-up of the Italian Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Recent reports showed that the protective effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening was maintained up to17 years, although differences were reported by sex.

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term reduction of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality after a single FS screening.

DESIGN

Parallel randomized controlled trial. (ISRCTN registry number: 27814061).

SETTING

6 centers in Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons aged 55 to 64 years expressing interest in having FS screening if invited, recruited from 1995 to 1999 and followed until 2012 (incidence) and 2014 to 2016 (mortality).

INTERVENTION

Eligible persons were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either the once-only FS screening group or control (usual care) group.

MEASUREMENTS

Incidence and mortality rate ratios (RRs) and rate differences.

RESULTS

A total of 34 272 persons (17 136 in each group) were included in the analysis; 9911 participants had screening in the intervention group. Median follow-up was 15.4 years for incidence and 18.8 years for mortality. Incidence of CRC was reduced by 19% (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93]) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, comparing the intervention with the control group, and by 33% (RR, 0.67 [CI, 0.56 to 0.81]) in the per protocol (PP) analysis, comparing participants screened in the intervention group with the control persons. Colorectal cancer mortality was reduced by 22% (RR, 0.78 [CI, 0.61 to 0.98]) in the ITT analysis and by 39% (RR, 0.61 [CI, 0.44 to 0.84]) in the PP analysis. Incidence of CRC was statistically significantly reduced among both men and women. Colorectal cancer mortality was statistically significantly reduced among men (ITT RR, 0.73 [CI, 0.54 to 0.97]) but not among women (ITT RR, 0.90 [CI, 0.59 to 1.37]).

LIMITATION

Self-selection of volunteers from the general population sample targeted for recruitment may limit generalizability.

CONCLUSION

The strong protective effect of a single FS screening for CRC incidence and mortality was maintained up to 15 and 19 years, respectively.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Italian Association for Cancer Research, Italian National Research Council, Istituto Oncologico Romagnolo, Fondo "E. Tempia," University of Milan, and Local Health Unit ASL-Torino.

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.

Model based evaluation of long-term efficacy of existing and alternative colorectal cancer screening offers: A case study for Germany

For individuals willing to minimize their lifetime risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), the most effective screening approach remains unclear. Here, we sought to compare the long-term performance of existing and alternative CRC screening offers in a case study for Germany. Applying the perspective of a perfectly adhering man or woman at average risk, we used COSIMO, a validated Markov-based multistate model, to simulate the effects of current CRC screening offers in Germany. These include age- and sex-dependent offers for fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or screening colonoscopy, which may be used twice starting at age 50 in men and age 55 in women. For comparison, we modeled screening colonoscopies at ages 50, 60 and 70, screening colonoscopies at ages 50 and 60, followed by biennial FITs and conventional FIT-based strategies at varying intervals. We found that the highest reductions in lifetime risks of developing (76%-84%) and dying from CRC (82%-90%) were achieved by three colonoscopies, followed by annual FIT screening and strategies combining both modalities. In men, additional screening from age 70 onwards reduced the risk of dying from CRC by another 9% units and resulted in 32 to 39 additional life-years-gained per 1000 individuals. Among women, three colonoscopies outperformed current screening offers in all outcomes, at little risk of screening-related complications. In summary, several FIT- and colonoscopy-based offers yield comparably high CRC risk reductions, including approaches combining both modalities. German screening offers may be optimized by lowering the eligibility age for screening colonoscopy for women, along with additional offers for the elderly.