Cultivating Cohort Studies for Observational Translational Research

“Discovery” research about molecular markers for diagnosis, prognosis, or prediction of response to therapy has frequently produced results that were not reproducible in subsequent studies. What are the reasons, and can observational cohorts be cultivated to provide strong and reliable answers to those questions

Phenotypic features effectively stratify risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults

poster abstractBackground: While colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective and cost-effective for reducing CRC incidence and mortality, it is underutilized (nearly 40% of U.S. adults are either not current with or have never been screened), inefficient (low-risk persons undergo colonoscopy), and costly to the U.S. health care system. A simple and effective way of stratifying risk for advanced neoplasia (AN – CRC and advanced, precancerous polyps) could improve the efficiency and uptake of screening by tailoring colonoscopy toward persons at highrisk and giving low-risk persons less-invasive options. Although several risk factors for AN have been identified, they are not used in clinical practice in part because of inability to integrate the factors to produce a risk estimate. Objective: To derive and validate a risk index for AN (CRC, advanced adenomas, serrated polyps >= 1 cm) anywhere in the colorectum. Methods: We measured socio-demographic features, medical and family history, lifestyle factors, and physical features in 50-80 year old persons who underwent first-time screening colonoscopy between December 2004 and September 2011, and linked these factors to endoscopic and histologic findings. Using logistic regression, we derived a risk equation on a randomly selected 2/3s of the sample. A 12-variable model was selected based on optimal statistical metrics. Based on model coefficients, we assigned points to each variable to create a risk score, which ranged from -13 to 8. Scores with comparable magnitudes of risk were collapsed into 3 risk categories. The model was tested on the remaining third of the sample. Results: Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 ± 6.5 years; 52% women), the prevalence of AN was 9.4% (including 26 CRCs). Model variables include age, sex, smoking, ethanol use, marital status, NSAID and aspirin use, physical activity, education level, and metabolic syndrome (P-value for fit = 0.09; cstatistic=0.78). Respective risks of AN in the low- (scores of -13 to -5), intermediate- (scores of -4 to 2) and high- (scores of 3 to 12) were 1.52% (95%, 0.07-2.8%), 6.86%, and 26.8% (P-value for trend < 0.001), with respective cohort proportions of 23%, 59% and 18%. Ten low-risk subjects had AN (0 CRCs, 6 distal). Based on finding a distal sentinel polyp, sigmoidoscopy to the descending colon would have detected 7(70%) ANs. Among the 1475 subjects in the test set (mean age 57.2 ± 6.5 years; 52% women), AN prevalence was 8.4%. Risk of AN in the low-risk subgroup was 2.73% (CI, 1.25-5.11%) and was 5.57% and 25.4% in the intermediate- and high-risk subgroups, respectively (P<0.001), with cohort proportions of 23%, 59%, and 18%. Nine low-risk subjects had AN (0 CRCs, 5 distal, 6 detectable by sigmoidoscopy. Conclusion: This new risk index effectively stratifies the risk for AN among asymptomatic adults, identifying a low-risk subgroup of 23% that may be screened effectively and efficiently with tests other than colonoscopy and a high-risk subgroup of 18% in which colonoscopy may be preferable. If validated in other settings, this index could increase both the efficiency and uptake of CRC screening

Principles of Cancer Screening: Lessons From History and Study Design Issues

Early detection of cancer has held great promise and intuitive appeal in the medical community for well over a century. Its history developed in tandem with that of the periodic health examination, in which any deviations—subtle or glaring--from a clearly demarcated “normal” were to be rooted out, given the underlying hypothesis that diseases develop along progressive linear paths of increasing abnormalities. This model of disease development drove the logical deduction that early detection—by “breaking the chain” of cancer development--must be of benefit to affected individuals. In the latter half of the 20th century, researchers and guidelines organizations began to explicitly challenge the core assumptions underpinning many clinical practices. A move away from intuitive thinking began with the development of evidence-based medicine. One key method developed to explicitly quantify the overall risk-benefit profile of a given procedure was the analytic framework. The shift away from pure deductive reasoning and reliance on personal observation was driven, in part, by a rising awareness of critical biases in cancer screening that can mislead clinicians, including healthy volunteer bias, length-biased sampling, lead-time bias, and overdiagnosis. A new focus on the net balance of both benefits and harms when determining the overall worth of an intervention also arose: it was recognized that the potential downsides of early detection were frequently overlooked or discounted because screening is performed on basically healthy persons and initially involves relatively noninvasive methods. Although still inconsistently applied to early detection programs, policies, and belief systems in the United States, an evidence-based approach is essential to counteract the misleading—even potentially harmful--allure of intuition and individual observation

Recommendations for Post-Polypectomy Surveillance in Community Practice

After colon cancer screening, large numbers of persons discovered with colon polyps may receive post-polypectomy surveillance with multiple colonoscopy examinations over time. Decisions about surveillance interval are based in part on polyp size, histology, and number

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

Objective Knowing risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) could help patients and providers choose among screening tests, improving screening efficiency and uptake. We created a risk prediction model for AN to help decide which test might be preferred, a use not considered for existing models. Design Average-risk 50-to-80-year olds undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy were recruited from endoscopy units in Indiana. We measured sociodemographic and physical features, medical and family history and lifestyle factors and linked these to the most advanced finding. We derived a risk equation on two-thirds of the sample and assigned points to each variable to create a risk score. Scores with comparable risks were collapsed into risk categories. The model and score were tested on the remaining sample. Results Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 (6.5) years; 52% women), AN prevalence was 9.4%. The 13-variable model (c-statistic=0.77) produced three risk groups with AN risks of 1.5% (95% CI 0.72% to 2.74%), 7.06% (CI 5.89% to 8.38%) and 27.26% (CI 23.47% to 31.30%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (p value <0.001), containing 23%, 59% and 18% of subjects, respectively. In the validation set of 1475 subjects (AN prevalence of 8.4%), model performance was comparable (c-statistic=0.78), with AN risks of 2.73% (CI 1.25% to 5.11%), 5.57% (CI 4.12% to 7.34%) and 25.79% (CI 20.51% to 31.66%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk subgroups, respectively (p<0.001), containing proportions of 23%, 59% and 18%. Conclusion Among average-risk persons, this model estimates AN risk with high discrimination, identifying a lower risk subgroup that may be screened non-invasively and a higher risk subgroup for which colonoscopy may be preferred. The model could help guide patient–provider discussions of screening options, may increase screening adherence and conserve colonoscopy resources

How can polygenic inheritance be used in population screening for common diseases?

Advances in genomics have near-term impact on diagnosis and management of monogenic disorders. For common complex diseases, the use of genomic information from multiple loci (polygenic model) is generally not useful for diagnosis and individual prediction. In principle, the polygenic model could be used along with other risk factors in stratified population screening to target interventions. For example, compared to age-based criterion for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening, adding polygenic risk and family history holds promise for more efficient screening with earlier start and/or increased frequency of screening for segments of the population at higher absolute risk than an established screening threshold; and later start and/or decreased frequency of screening for segments of the population at lower risks. This approach, while promising, faces formidable challenges for building its evidence base and for its implementation in practice. Currently, it is unclear whether or not polygenic risk can contribute enough discrimination to make stratified screening worthwhile. Empirical data are lacking on population-based age-specific absolute risks combining genetic and non-genetic factors, on impact of polygenic risk genes on disease natural history, as well as information on comparative balance of benefits and harms of stratified interventions. Implementation challenges include difficulties in integration of this information in the current health-care system in the United States, the setting of appropriate risk thresholds, and ethical, legal, and social issues. In an era of direct-to-consumer availability of personal genomic information, the public health and health-care systems need to prepare for an evidence-based integration of this information into population screening

Tailoring Colorectal Cancer Screening by Considering Risk of Advanced Proximal Neoplasia

Quantifying risk of advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia might allow tailoring of colorectal cancer screening, with colonoscopy for those at high risk, and less invasive screening for very low-risk persons

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

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

Fecal DNA versus Fecal Occult Blood for Colorectal-Cancer Screening in an Average-Risk Population

BACKGROUND Although fecal occult-blood testing is the only available noninvasive screening method that reduces the risk of death from colorectal cancer, it has limited sensitivity. We compared an approach that identifies abnormal DNA in stool samples with the Hemoccult II fecal occult-blood test in average-risk, asymptomatic persons 50 years of age or older. METHODS Eligible subjects submitted one stool specimen for DNA analysis, underwent standard Hemoccult II testing, and then underwent colonoscopy. Of 5486 subjects enrolled, 4404 completed all aspects ofthe study. A subgroup of 2507 subjects was analyzed, including all those with a diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma or advanced adenoma plus randomly chosen subjects with no polyps or minor polyps. The fecal DNA panel consisted of 21 mutations. RESULTS The fecal DNA panel detected 16 of 31 invasive cancers, whereas Hemoccult II identified 4 of 31 (51.6 percent vs. 12.9 percent, P=0.003). The DNA panel detected 29 of 71 invasive cancers plus adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, whereas Hemoccult II identified 10 of 71 (40.8 percent vs. 14.1 percent, P<0.001). Among 418 subjects with advanced neoplasia (defined as a tubular adenoma at least 1 cm in diameter, a polyp with a villous histologic appearance, a polyp with high-grade dysplasia, or cancer), the DNA panel was positive in 76 (18.2 percent), whereas Hemoccult II was positive in 45 (10.8 percent). Specificity in subjects with negative findings on colonoscopy was 94.4 percent for the fecal DNA panel and 95.2 percent for Hemoccult II. CONCLUSIONS Although the majority of neoplastic lesions identified by colonoscopy were not detected by either noninvasive test, the multitarget analysis of fecal DNA detected a greater proportion of important colorectal neoplasia than did Hemoccult II without compromising specificity

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice: Innovative Strategies and Future Directions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been supported by strong research evidence and recommended in clinical practice guidelines for more than a decade. Yet screening rates in the United States remain low, especially relative to other preventable diseases such as breast and cervical cancer. To understand the reasons, the National Cancer Institute and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored a review of CRC screening implementation in primary care and a program of research funded by these organizations. The evidence base for improving CRC screening supports the value of a New Model of Primary Care Delivery: 1. a team approach, in which responsibility for screening tasks is shared among other members of the practice, would help address physicians’ lack of time for preventive care; 2. information systems can identify eligible patients and remind them when screening is due; 3. involving patients in decisions about their own care may enhance screening participation; 4. monitoring practice performance, supported by information systems, can help target patients at increased risk because of family history or social disadvantage; 5. reimbursement for services outside the traditional provider—patient encounter, such as telephone and e-mail contacts, may foster enhanced screening delivery; 6. training opportunities in communication, cultural competence, and use of information technologies would improve provider competence in core elements of screening programs. Improvement in CRC screening rates largely depends on the efforts of primary care practices to implement effective systems and procedures for screening delivery. Active engagement and support of practices are essential for the enormous potential of CRC screening to be realized