Controversies in colorectal cancer screening

$\textbf {Background:}$ Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and a good candidate for screening programmes. However, there is controversy concerning which of the available screening tests should be used. $\textbf {Summary:}$ There is general agreement that screening for CRC in the asymptomatic population should begin at the age of 50. Several different screening methods are available which can be separated into those that mainly detect cancers: faecal occult blood tests [guaiac (FOBT) and immunochemical (FIT)], genetic stool tests, blood tests and the M2-pyruvate kinase (M2-PK) test. Methods that detect cancers and polyps are colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT-colonography (CT-C) and colon capsule endoscopy. The only tests for which a reduction in CRC mortality compared to no screening have been proven in randomized trials are FOBT and sigmoidoscopy. Several trials suggest that FIT are superior to FOBT in terms of detection rates of cancers and advanced adenomas and possibly compliance. There is indirect evidence suggesting efficacy of colonoscopy as a screening test. The role of CT-C is controversial. There is data suggesting a good sensitivity for neoplasia >9 mm with a lower sensitivity for smaller neoplasia. However, radiation exposure is considered a major limitation in some countries. Unresolved questions include the lesion cut-off for referral to colonoscopy and work-up of extracolonic findings. For other methods, like genetic stool testing using newer markers, blood tests, capsule endoscopy and M2-PK, there is currently insufficient data on screening of the asymptomatic population. $\textbf {Key Messages:}$ Colorectal screening is recommended and should be performed in the form of an organized programme. If detection of early-stage cancers is the aim of a screening programme, FIT seem to be superior to FOBT. If detection and removal of adenomas is the aim of a screening programme, endoscopic methods seem to be good alternatives. Sigmoidoscopy is easier to perform but will likely only have an effect on distal cancers. Colonoscopy is more invasive but enables inspection of the whole colon. The role of CT-C, capsule endoscopy, genetic stool tests, blood tests and M2-PK is currently unknown

Early detection of duodenal cancer by upper gastrointestinal-endoscopy in Lynch syndrome

Small bowel cancer (SBC) is the malignancy with the highest standardized incidence ratio in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients. Of all SBCs, about 50% are duodenal cancers (DCs), therefore being accessible by esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) for surveillance. We asked whether early detection of DC is possible for LS patients undergoing surveillance by EGD and if surveillance should be limited to specific subgroups. Data for LS patients with DC were retrieved from the registry of the German Consortium for Familial Intestinal Cancer. Patients undergoing active surveillance by EGDs (surveillance group) were compared to those who did not (nonsurveillance group) regarding tumor stage at diagnosis. Union for International Cancer Control stages I-IIA were defined as early stage disease and IIB-IV as advanced stage disease. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. Among 2015 patients with pathogenic variants in any mismatch-repair-gene, 47 patients with 49 DCs were identified. In 10% of cases, patients were under 35 years at diagnosis; family and personal tumor history did not correlate with DC diagnosis. Pathogenic germline variants in $\it MSH6$, $\it PMS2$ or $\it EPCAM$ were present in 10% of patients. Statistical analysis could be performed on 13 DC patients in the surveillance group and 14 in the nonsurveillance group. Early detection was possible for 71% of patients in the surveillance group and 29% of patients in the nonsurveillance group ($\it P$ = .021). Early detection of DC by EGD in LS patients is feasible regardless of family history, mutational status and should start no later than 25 years of age

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase testing prior to treatment with 5-Fluorouracil, Capecitabine, and Tegafur

$\bf Background:$ 5-Fluorouracil (FU) is one of the most commonly used cytostatic drugs in the systemic treatment of cancer. Treatment with FU may cause severe or life-threatening side effects and the treatment-related mortality rate is 0.2–1.0%. $\bf Summary:$ Among other risk factors associated with increased toxicity, a genetic deficiency in dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), an enzyme responsible for the metabolism of FU, is well known. This is due to variants in the DPD gene (DPYD). Up to 9% of European patients carry a DPD gene variant that decreases enzyme activity, and DPD is completely lacking in approximately 0.5% of patients. Here we describe the clinical and genetic background and summarize recommendations for the genetic testing and tailoring of treatment with 5-FU derivatives. The statement was developed as a consensus statement organized by the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology in cooperation with 13 medical associations from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. $\bf Key Messages:$ (i) Patients should be tested for the 4 most common genetic DPYD variants before treatment with drugs containing FU. (ii) Testing forms the basis for a differentiated, risk-adapted algorithm with recommendations for treatment with FU-containing drugs. (iii) Testing may optionally be supplemented by therapeutic drug monitoring