Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic review

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Detecting the disease at an early stage improves outcomes. Risk prediction models which combine multiple risk factors and symptoms have the potential to improve timely diagnosis. The aim of this review is to systematically identify and compare the performance of models that predict the risk of primary CRC among symptomatic individuals. Methods We searched Medline and EMBASE to identify primary research studies reporting, validating or assessing the impact of models. For inclusion, models needed to assess a combination of risk factors that included symptoms, present data on model performance, and be applicable to the general population. Screening of studies for inclusion and data extraction were completed independently by at least two researchers. Results Twelve thousand eight hundred eight papers were identified from the literature search and three through citation searching. 18 papers describing 15 risk models were included. Nine were developed in primary care populations and six in secondary care. Four had good discrimination (AUROC > 0.8) in external validation studies, and sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.25 and 0.99 to 0.99 and 0.46 depending on the cut-off chosen. Conclusions Models with good discrimination have been developed in both primary and secondary care populations. Most contain variables that are easily obtainable in a single consultation, but further research is needed to assess clinical utility before they are incorporated into practice

Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic review

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Detecting the disease at an early stage improves outcomes. Risk prediction models which combine multiple risk factors and symptoms have the potential to improve timely diagnosis. The aim of this review is to systematically identify and compare the performance of models that predict the risk of primary CRC among symptomatic individuals. Methods We searched Medline and EMBASE to identify primary research studies reporting, validating or assessing the impact of models. For inclusion, models needed to assess a combination of risk factors that included symptoms, present data on model performance, and be applicable to the general population. Screening of studies for inclusion and data extraction were completed independently by at least two researchers. Results Twelve thousand eight hundred eight papers were identified from the literature search and three through citation searching. 18 papers describing 15 risk models were included. Nine were developed in primary care populations and six in secondary care. Four had good discrimination (AUROC > 0.8) in external validation studies, and sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.25 and 0.99 to 0.99 and 0.46 depending on the cut-off chosen. Conclusions Models with good discrimination have been developed in both primary and secondary care populations. Most contain variables that are easily obtainable in a single consultation, but further research is needed to assess clinical utility before they are incorporated into practice

Faecal haemoglobin and faecal calprotectin as indicators of bowel disease in patients presenting to primary care with bowel symptoms

OBJECTIVE: In primary care, assessing which patients with bowel symptoms harbour significant disease (cancer, higher-risk adenoma or IBD) is difficult. We studied the diagnostic accuracies of faecal haemoglobin (FHb) and faecal calprotectin (FC) in a cohort of symptomatic patients. DESIGN: From October 2013 to March 2014, general practitioners were prompted to request FHb and FC when referring patients with bowel symptoms to secondary care. Faecal samples were analysed for haemoglobin (EIKEN OC-Sensor io) and calprotectin (BÜHLMANN Calprotectin ELISA). Patients triaged to endoscopy were investigated within 6 weeks. All clinicians and endoscopists were blind to the faecal test results. The diagnostic accuracies of FHb and FC for identification of significant bowel disease were assessed. RESULTS: 1043 patients returned samples. FHb was detectable in 57.6% (median 0.4 µg/g, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.8; range 0–200). FC at 50 µg/g or above was present in 60.0%. 755 patients (54.6% women, median age 64 years (range 16–90, IQR 52–73)) returned samples and completed colonic investigations. 103 patients had significant bowel disease; the negative predictive values of FHb for colorectal cancer, higher-risk adenoma and IBD were 100%, 97.8% and 98.4%, respectively. Using cut-offs of detectable FHb and/or 200 µg/g FC detected two further cases of IBD, one higher-risk adenoma and no additional cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care, undetectable FHb is a good ‘rule-out’ test for significant bowel disease and could guide who requires investigation

Effect of aspirin on the diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test for colorectal advanced neoplasia

Background: Aspirin (ASA) is a drug that can cause gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most prevalent type of cancer in Western countries. We assessed the effect of aspirin on the diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC and/or advanced neoplasia (AN) in patients undergoing colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicentre observational study of diagnostic tests that included patients with gastrointestinal symptoms undergoing colonoscopy between March 2012 and 2014 (the COLONPREDICT study). Symptoms were assessed and a FIT and blood tests assessing haemoglobin and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were performed. Results: The study included 3052 patients: A total of 2567 did not take aspirin (non-user group) and 485 (16%) took aspirin (user group). Continuous treatment with ASA did not change the AUC (0.88, 0.82; p = 0.06), sensitivity (92%, 88%; p = 0.5) or specificity (71%, 67%; p = 0.2) of the FIT for CRC detection. Similarly, we found no differences in the AUC (0.81, 0.79; p = 0.6), sensitivity (74%, 75.5%; p = 0.3) or specificity (76%, 73.6%; p = 0.3) for AN detection. Patients with an aspirin use of = 300 mg/day had a lower prevalence of AN and the sensitivity, specificity and AUC for AN for these patients were 54%, 68% and 0.66, significantly lower than for the non-user group (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Aspirin does not modify the diagnostic accuracy of FIT for CRC and/or AN in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Aspirin use of = 300 mg/day decreases the accuracy of the test

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms:a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance

__Background:__ This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. __Methods:__ We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. __Results:__ Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 μg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1%, based on four studies, and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 μg Hb/g faeces cut-off reported a sensitivity of 100%. The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6%, respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. __Conclusions:__ There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 μg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 4201603772

Retrospective cohort study: Risk of gastrointestinal cancer in a symptomatic cohort after a complete colonoscopy: Role of faecal immunochemical test

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been recommended to assess symptomatic patients for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Nevertheless, some conditions could theoretically favour blood originating in proximal areas of the gastrointestinal tract passing through the colon unmetabolized. A positive FIT result could be related to other gastrointestinal cancers (GIC). AIM: To assess the risk of GIC detection and related death in FIT-positive symptomatic patients (threshold 10 µg Hb/g faeces) without CRC. METHODS: Post hoc cohort analysis performed within two prospective diagnostic test studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of different FIT analytical systems for CRC and significant colonic lesion detection. Ambulatory patients with gastrointestinal symptoms referred consecutively for colonoscopy from primary and secondary healthcare, underwent a quantitative FIT before undergoing a complete colonoscopy. Patients without CRC were divided into two groups (positive and negative FIT) using the threshold of 10 µg Hb/g of faeces and data from follow-up were retrieved from electronic medical records of the public hospitals involved in the research. We determined the cumulative risk of GIC, CRC and upper GIC. Hazard rate (HR) was calculated adjusted by age, sex and presence of significant colonic lesion. RESULTS: We included 2709 patients without CRC and a complete baseline colonoscopy, 730 (26.9%) with FIT = 10 µgr Hb/gr. During a mean time of 45.5 ± 20.0 mo, a GIC was detected in 57 (2.1%) patients: An upper GIC in 35 (1.3%) and a CRC in 14 (0.5%). Thirty-six patients (1.3%) died due to GIC: 22 (0.8%) due to an upper GIC and 9 (0.3%) due to CRC. FIT-positive subjects showed a higher CRC risk (HR 3.8, 95%CI: 1.2-11.9) with no differences in GIC (HR 1.5, 95%CI: 0.8-2.7) or upper GIC risk (HR 1.0, 95%CI: 0.5-2.2). Patients with a positive FIT had only an increased risk of CRC-related death (HR 10.8, 95%CI: 2.1-57.1) and GIC-related death (HR 2.2, 95%CI: 1.1-4.3), with no differences in upper GIC-related death (HR 1.4, 95%CI: 0.6-3.3). An upper GIC was detected in 22 (0.8%) patients during the first year. Two variables were independently associated: anaemia (OR 5.6, 95%CI: 2.2-13.9) and age = 70 years (OR 2.7, 95%CI: 1.1-7.0). CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients without CRC have a moderate risk increase in upper GIC, regardless of the FIT result. Patients with a positive FIT have an increased risk of post-colonoscopy CRC

Risk of gastrointestinal cancer in a symptomatic cohort after a complete colonoscopy: Role of faecal immunochemical test

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been recommended to assess symptomatic patients for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Nevertheless, some conditions could theoretically favour blood originating in proximal areas of the gastrointestinal tract passing through the colon unmetabolized. A positive FIT result could be related to other gastrointestinal cancers (GIC). AIM To assess the risk of GIC detection and related death in FIT-positive symptomatic patients (threshold 10 mu g Hb/g faeces) without CRC. METHODS: Post hoc cohort analysis performed within two prospective diagnostic test studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of different FIT analytical systems for CRC and significant colonic lesion detection. Ambulatory patients with gastrointestinal symptoms referred consecutively for colonoscopy from primary and secondary healthcare, underwent a quantitative FIT before undergoing a complete colonoscopy. Patients without CRC were divided into two groups (positive and negative FIT) using the threshold of 10 mu g Hb/g of faeces and data from follow-up were retrieved from electronic medical records of the public hospitals involved in the research. We determined the cumulative risk of GIC, CRC and upper GIC. Hazard rate (HR) was calculated adjusted by age, sex and presence of significant colonic lesion. RESULTS: We included 2709 patients without CRC and a complete baseline colonoscopy, 730 (26.9%) with FIT >= 10 mu gr Hb/gr. During a mean time of 45.5 +/- 20.0 mo, a GIC was detected in 57 (2.1%) patients: An upper GIC in 35 (1.3%) and a CRC in 14 (0.5%). Thirty-six patients (1.3%) died due to GIC: 22 (0.8%) due to an upper GIC and 9 (0.3%) due to CRC. FIT-positive subjects showed a higher CRC risk (HR 3.8, 95%CI: 1.2-11.9) with no differences in GIC (HR 1.5, 95%CI: 0.8-2.7) or upper GIC risk (HR 1.0, 95%CI: 0.5-2.2). Patients with a positive FIT had only an increased risk of CRC-related death (HR 10.8, 95%CI: 2.1-57.1) and GIC-related death (HR 2.2, 95%CI: 1.1-4.3), with no differences in upper GIC-related death (HR 1.4, 95%CI: 0.6-3.3). An upper GIC was detected in 22 (0.8%) patients during the first year. Two variables were independently associated: anaemia (OR 5.6, 95%CI: 2.2-13.9) and age >= 70 years (OR 2.7, 95%CI: 1.1-7.0). CONCLUSION Symptomatic patients without CRC have a moderate risk increase in upper GIC, regardless of the FIT result. Patients with a positive FIT have an increased risk of post-colonoscopy CRC

Ischemic Colitis of the Left Colon in a Diabetic Patient

Diabetes mellitus may affect the gastrointestinal tract possibly as a result of autonomic neuropathy. Here we present a 68-year-old male with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus who presented with prolonged watery diarrhea and in whom imaging studies demonstrated ischemic colitis of the left colon. Resection of the affected colon resulted in sustained disappearance of symptoms

Plasma MicroRNA Signature Validation for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVES: Specific microRNA (miRNA) signatures in biological fluids can facilitate earlier detection of the tumors being then minimally invasive diagnostic biomarkers. Circulating miRNAs have also emerged as promising diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In this study, we investigated the performance of a specific signature of miRNA in plasma samples to design a robust predictive model that can distinguish healthy individuals from those with CRC or advanced adenomas (AA) diseases. METHODS: Case control study of 297 patients from 8 Spanish centers including 100 healthy individuals, 101 diagnosed with AA, and 96 CRC cases. Quantitative real-time reverse transcription was used to quantify a signature of miRNA (miRNA19a, miRNA19b, miRNA15b, miRNA29a, miRNA335, and miRNA18a) in plasma samples. Binary classifiers (Support Vector Machine [SVM] linear, SVM radial, and SVM polynomial) were built for the best predictive model. RESULTS: Area under receiving operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.871-0.962) was obtained retrieving a model with a sensitivity of 0.85 and specificity of 0.90, positive predictive value of 0.94, and negative predictive value of 0.76 when advanced neoplasms (CRC and AA) were compared with healthy individuals. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and validated a signature of 6 miRNAs (miRNA19a, miRNA19b, miRNA15b, miRNA29a, miRNA335, and miRNA18a) as predictors that can differentiate significantly patients with CRC and AA from those who are healthy. However, large-scale validation studies in asymptomatic screening participants should be conducted

Integrated Analysis of Germline and Tumor DNA Identifies New Candidate Genes Involved in Familial Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) shows aggregation in some families but no alterations in the known hereditary CRC genes. We aimed to identify new candidate genes which are potentially involved in germline predisposition to familial CRC. An integrated analysis of germline and tumor whole-exome sequencing data was performed in 18 unrelated CRC families. Deleterious single nucleotide variants (SNV), short insertions and deletions (indels), copy number variants (CNVs) and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) were assessed as candidates for first germline or second somatic hits. Candidate tumor suppressor genes were selected when alterations were detected in both germline and somatic DNA, fulfilling Knudson's two-hit hypothesis. Somatic mutational profiling and signature analysis were also performed. A series of germline-somatic variant pairs were detected. In all cases, the first hit was presented as a rare SNV/indel, whereas the second hit was either a different SNV (3 genes) or LOH affecting the same gene (141 genes). BRCA2, BLM, ERCC2, RECQL, REV3L and RIF1 were among the most promising candidate genes for germline CRC predisposition. The identification of new candidate genes involved in familial CRC could be achieved by our integrated analysis. Further functional studies and replication in additional cohorts are required to confirm the selected candidates