Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in a national FIT-based CRC screening program

Background and study aims: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction on the long-term we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT-) based screening program. Patients and methods: PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance), b) non-interval-type-A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval), c) non-interval-type-B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval), or d) non-interval-type-C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, but not applied due to comorbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories. Results: 116,362 colonoscopies were performed after positive FIT with 9,978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval-type-A (14.6%), non-interval-type-B (30.6%), and non-interval-type-C (1.4%). Interval PCCRCs had as most common etiology a possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%) and were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV, 53.2%) compared to non-interval-type-A (15.9%, p&lt;0.001) and non-interval-type-B (40.9%, p=0.025) PCCRCs. Conclusions: The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high-quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection.</p

Anticipating implementation of colorectal cancer screening in The Netherlands: a nation wide survey on endoscopic supply and demand

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening requires sufficient endoscopic resources. The present study aims to determine the Dutch endoscopic production and manpower for 2009, evaluate trends since 2004, determine additional workload which would be caused by implementation of a CRC screening program, and inventory colonoscopy rates performed in other European countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All Dutch endoscopy units (N = 101) were surveyed for manpower and the numbers of endoscopy procedures performed in 2009. Based on calculations in the report issued by the Dutch Health Council, future additional workload caused by faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening was estimated. The number of colonoscopies performed in Europe was evaluated by a literature search and an email-inquiry.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to 2004, there was a 24% increase in total endoscopies (N = 505,226 in 2009), and a 64% increase in colonoscopies (N = 191,339 in 2009) in The Netherlands. The number of endoscopists had increased by 4.6% (N = 583 in 2009). Five years after stepwise implementation of FIT-based CRC screening, endoscopic capacity needs to be increased an additional 15%. A lack of published data on the number of endoscopies performed in Europe was found. Based on our email-inquiry, the number of colonoscopies per 100,000 inhabitants ranged from 126 to 3,031 in 15 European countries.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Over the last years, endoscopic procedures increased markedly in The Netherlands without a corresponding increase in manpower. A FIT-based CRC screening program requires an estimated additional 15% increase in endoscopic procedures. It is very likely that current colonoscopy density varies widely across European countries.</p

Does delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients affect tumor stage and survival? A population-based observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) at an early stage improves survival. To what extent any delay affects outcome once patients are symptomatic is still unclear.</p> <p>Our objectives were to evaluate the association between diagnostic delay and survival in symptomatic patients with early stage CRC and late stage CRC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective population-based observational study evaluating daily clinical practice in Northern Holland. Diagnostic delay was determined through questionnaire-interviews. Dukes' stage was classified into two groups: early stage (Dukes A or B) and late stage (Dukes C or D) cancer. Patients were followed up for 3.5 years after diagnosis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 272 patients were available for analysis. Early stage CRC was present in 136 patients while 136 patients had late stage CRC. The mean total diagnostic delay (SE) was 31 (1.5) weeks in all CRC patients. No significant difference was observed in the mean total diagnostic delay in early versus late stage CRC (<it>p </it>= 0.27).</p> <p>In early stage CRC, no difference in survival was observed between patients with total diagnostic delay shorter and longer than the median (Kaplan-Meier, log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.93).</p> <p>In late stage CRC, patients with a diagnostic delay shorter than the median had a shorter survival than patients with a diagnostic delay longer than the median (log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.01). In the multivariate Cox regression model with survival as dependent variable and median delay, age, open access endoscopy, number and type of symptoms as independent variables, the odd's ratio for survival in patients with long delay (>median) versus short delay (≤median) was 1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 3.0; <it>p </it>= 0.01). Tumor-site was not associated with patient survival. When separating late stage CRC in Dukes C and Dukes D tumors, a shorter delay was associated with a shorter survival in Dukes D tumors only and not in Dukes C tumors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In symptomatic CRC patients, a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay in routine clinical practice was not associated with an adverse effect on survival. The time to CRC diagnosis and initiation of treatment did not differ between early stage and late stage colorectal cancer.</p

Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Test performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>At any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT.</p

Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers

Background:The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. Methods: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. Results: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screendetected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38- 0.68). Conclusions: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.</p

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers:a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry

Background Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC<2cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. Methods Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. Results We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.7%-90.3%), 85.6% (95%CI 81.2%-89.2%), and 60.3% (95%CI 54.7%-65.7%). Curative resection rate was 23.7% (95%CI 15.9%-33.6%) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8% (95%CI 50.4%-70.4%) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3%. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2%. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3%), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4%). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6%), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5%) following an incomplete resection. Conclusions eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes

Promoter DNA Methylation of Oncostatin M receptor-β as a Novel Diagnostic and Therapeutic Marker in Colon Cancer

In addition to genetic changes, the occurrence of epigenetic alterations is associated with accumulation of both genetic and epigenetic events that promote the development and progression of human cancer. Previously, we reported a set of candidate genes that comprise part of the emerging “cancer methylome”. In the present study, we first tested 23 candidate genes for promoter methylation in a small number of primary colon tumor tissues and controls. Based on these results, we then examined the methylation frequency of Oncostatin M receptor-β (OSMR) in a larger number of tissue and stool DNA samples collected from colon cancer patients and controls. We found that OSMR was frequently methylated in primary colon cancer tissues (80%, 80/100), but not in normal tissues (4%, 4/100). Methylation of OSMR was also detected in stool DNA from colorectal cancer patients (38%, 26/69) (cut-off in TaqMan-MSP, 4). Detection of other methylated markers in stool DNA improved sensitivity with little effect on specificity. Promoter methylation mediated silencing of OSMR in cell lines, and CRC cells with low OSMR expression were resistant to growth inhibition by Oncostatin M. Our data provide a biologic rationale for silencing of OSMR in colon cancer progression and highlight a new therapeutic target in this disease. Moreover, detection and quantification of OSMR promoter methylation in fecal DNA is a highly specific diagnostic biomarker for CRC

Clip placement to prevent delayed bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (CLIPPER): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk. Methods: The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding. Discussion: The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683. Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021

Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers

Background The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. Methods Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. Results 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screendetected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38- 0.68). Conclusions Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival