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 MSH6, PMS2 or 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 (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

Value of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for gastric cancer surveillance in patients with Lynch syndrome

In our study, we evaluated the effectiveness of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy as an instrument for early gastric cancer (GC) detection in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients by analyzing data from the registry of the German Consortium for Familial Intestinal Cancer. In a prospective, multicenter cohort study, 1128 out of 2009 registered individuals with confirmed LS underwent 5176 upper GI endoscopies. Compliance was good since 77.6% of upper GI endoscopies were completed within the recommended interval of 1 to 3 years. Forty-nine GC events were observed in 47 patients. MLH1 (n = 21) and MSH2 (n = 24) mutations were the most prevalent. GCs in patients undergoing regular surveillance were diagnosed significantly more often in an early-stage disease (UICC I) than GCs detected through symptoms (83% vs 25%; P = .0231). Thirty-two (68%) patients had a negative family history of GC. The median age at diagnosis was 51 years (range 28-66). Of all GC patients, 13 were diagnosed at an age younger than 45. Our study supports the recommendation of regular upper GI endoscopy surveillance for LS patients beginning no later than at the age of 30. What's new? Risk of gastric cancer (GC) is significantly increased among patients with Lynch syndrome (LS). GC screening in LS patients, however, is fraught with uncertainty, particularly regarding the use of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The authors of this study investigated the use of EGD for regular GC surveillance in a German cohort of LS patients. Regular surveillance by EGD resulted in more frequent diagnosis and significant down-staging of GC, relative to detection via symptoms alone. In most cases, family history of GC was negative. This study supports recommendations for regular gastroscopic surveillance in LS patients starting by age 30

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Testing prior to Treatment with 5-Fluorouracil, Capecitabine, and Tegafur: A Consensus Paper

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%. 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. 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 monitorin

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

Colorectal Cancer After Screening Colonoscopy: 10-Year Incidence by Site and Detection Rate at First Repeat Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to describe cumulative colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after screening colonoscopy stratified by tumor location, age, and sex as well as CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy. METHODS: Using the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database, we included persons with screening colonoscopy and assessed cumulative CRC incidence after baseline screening colonoscopy with snare polypectomy (cohort 1) and without polypectomy (cohort 2). We also determined the CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy by time since screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: Overall, 1,095,381 persons were included. The 10-year cumulative CRC incidence was 1.5% in cohort 1 and 0.6% in cohort 2. The proportion of proximal CRC increased with age: In women of cohort 1, 47% of CRCs in the age group 55–64 years were proximal (men: 42%) while in the age group 65–74 years, this proportion was 55% (men: 49%). In cohort 2, similar patterns were observed. In cohort 1, the CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy among persons examined within 6–8 years after screening colonoscopy was more than twice as high compared with those examined within 4–6 years (1.7% vs 0.8%). DISCUSSION: Among persons followed up after screening colonoscopy, we observed a steadily increasing predominance of proximal CRC, and this shift showed distinct patterns by age and sex. Because our study suggests higher CRC detection rates among persons with a later repeat colonoscopy, the role of delayed surveillance and the benefit of a reminder system should be explored

Polyp detection rate and cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Germany

Studies have shown that the quality of colonoscopy influences the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). However, data from Germany on this association are lacking. We aimed to assess cumulative incidence of PCCRC in persons undergoing colonoscopy in Germany according to the physician's polyp detection rate (PDR). Using the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD) with claims data of ~20% of the German population, we included persons with a baseline colonoscopy between 2008 and 2017 and categorized them according to the procedure at baseline (snare polypectomy, forceps polypectomy, no polypectomy). In each subgroup, we distinguished between persons examined by physicians with a PDR in the lowest quartile vs higher quartiles and described cumulative CRC incidence during follow-up. Overall, 822 715 persons examined by 1752 physicians were included. One quarter of the physicians had a PDR ≤21.8% (lowest quartile). In all subgroups, the 5-year cumulative CRC incidence was statistically significantly higher in persons examined by physicians with a PDR ≤21.8% vs >21.8%: It was 69% higher in persons with snare polypectomy (0.88% vs 0.52%), 87% higher in persons with forceps polypectomy (0.58% vs 0.31%), and 48% higher in persons without polypectomy at baseline (0.31% vs 0.21%). In conclusion, we found a substantially increased PCCRC risk in persons examined by physicians with a low PDR in Germany, irrespective of the baseline findings. Our study highlights the importance of a high-quality colonoscopy to maximize the preventive effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence