Colon and Rectal

TOPLINE:

Accounting for racial disparities, including in the quality of family history data, enhanced the predictive performance of a colorectal cancer (CRC) risk prediction model.

METHODOLOGY:

• The medical community is reevaluating the use of race adjustments in clinical algorithms due to concerns about the exacerbation of health disparities, especially as reported family history data are known to vary by race.
• To understand how adjusting for race affects the accuracy of CRC prediction algorithms, researchers studied data from community health centers across 12 states as part of the Southern Community Cohort Study.
• Researchers compared two screening algorithms that modeled 10-year CRC risk: A race-blind algorithm and a race-adjusted algorithm that included Black race as a main effect and an interaction with family history.
• The primary outcome was the development of CRC within 10 years of enrollment, assessed using data collected from surveys at enrollment and follow-ups, cancer registry data, and National Death Index reports.
• The researchers compared the algorithms’ predictive performance using such measures as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration and also assessed how adjusting for race changed the proportion of Black participants identified as being at high risk for CRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study sample included 77,836 adults aged 40-74 years with no history of CRC at baseline.
• Despite having higher cancer rates, Black participants were more likely to report unknown family history (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; P < .001) and less likely to report known positive family history (OR, 0.68; P < .001) than White participants.
• The interaction term between race and family history was 0.56, indicating that reported family history was less predictive of CRC risk in Black participants than in White participants (P = .010).
• Compared with the race-blinded algorithm, the race-adjusted algorithm increased the fraction of Black participants among the predicted high-risk group (66.1% vs 74.4%; P < .001), potentially enhancing access to screening.
• The race-adjusted algorithm improved the goodness of fit (P < .001) and showed a small improvement in AUC among Black participants (0.611 vs 0.608; P = .006).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our analysis found that removing race from colorectal screening predictors could reduce the number of Black patients recommended for screening, which would work against efforts to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna Zink, PhD, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago, was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA .

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not report any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Accounting for racial disparities, including in the quality of family history data, enhanced the predictive performance of a colorectal cancer (CRC) risk prediction model.

METHODOLOGY:

• The medical community is reevaluating the use of race adjustments in clinical algorithms due to concerns about the exacerbation of health disparities, especially as reported family history data are known to vary by race.
• To understand how adjusting for race affects the accuracy of CRC prediction algorithms, researchers studied data from community health centers across 12 states as part of the Southern Community Cohort Study.
• Researchers compared two screening algorithms that modeled 10-year CRC risk: A race-blind algorithm and a race-adjusted algorithm that included Black race as a main effect and an interaction with family history.
• The primary outcome was the development of CRC within 10 years of enrollment, assessed using data collected from surveys at enrollment and follow-ups, cancer registry data, and National Death Index reports.
• The researchers compared the algorithms’ predictive performance using such measures as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration and also assessed how adjusting for race changed the proportion of Black participants identified as being at high risk for CRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study sample included 77,836 adults aged 40-74 years with no history of CRC at baseline.
• Despite having higher cancer rates, Black participants were more likely to report unknown family history (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; P < .001) and less likely to report known positive family history (OR, 0.68; P < .001) than White participants.
• The interaction term between race and family history was 0.56, indicating that reported family history was less predictive of CRC risk in Black participants than in White participants (P = .010).
• Compared with the race-blinded algorithm, the race-adjusted algorithm increased the fraction of Black participants among the predicted high-risk group (66.1% vs 74.4%; P < .001), potentially enhancing access to screening.
• The race-adjusted algorithm improved the goodness of fit (P < .001) and showed a small improvement in AUC among Black participants (0.611 vs 0.608; P = .006).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our analysis found that removing race from colorectal screening predictors could reduce the number of Black patients recommended for screening, which would work against efforts to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna Zink, PhD, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago, was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA .

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not report any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Accounting for racial disparities, including in the quality of family history data, enhanced the predictive performance of a colorectal cancer (CRC) risk prediction model.

METHODOLOGY:

• The medical community is reevaluating the use of race adjustments in clinical algorithms due to concerns about the exacerbation of health disparities, especially as reported family history data are known to vary by race.
• To understand how adjusting for race affects the accuracy of CRC prediction algorithms, researchers studied data from community health centers across 12 states as part of the Southern Community Cohort Study.
• Researchers compared two screening algorithms that modeled 10-year CRC risk: A race-blind algorithm and a race-adjusted algorithm that included Black race as a main effect and an interaction with family history.
• The primary outcome was the development of CRC within 10 years of enrollment, assessed using data collected from surveys at enrollment and follow-ups, cancer registry data, and National Death Index reports.
• The researchers compared the algorithms’ predictive performance using such measures as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration and also assessed how adjusting for race changed the proportion of Black participants identified as being at high risk for CRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study sample included 77,836 adults aged 40-74 years with no history of CRC at baseline.
• Despite having higher cancer rates, Black participants were more likely to report unknown family history (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; P < .001) and less likely to report known positive family history (OR, 0.68; P < .001) than White participants.
• The interaction term between race and family history was 0.56, indicating that reported family history was less predictive of CRC risk in Black participants than in White participants (P = .010).
• Compared with the race-blinded algorithm, the race-adjusted algorithm increased the fraction of Black participants among the predicted high-risk group (66.1% vs 74.4%; P < .001), potentially enhancing access to screening.
• The race-adjusted algorithm improved the goodness of fit (P < .001) and showed a small improvement in AUC among Black participants (0.611 vs 0.608; P = .006).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our analysis found that removing race from colorectal screening predictors could reduce the number of Black patients recommended for screening, which would work against efforts to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anna Zink, PhD, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago, was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA .

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not report any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.
 

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.
 

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.
 

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although considered a single class, fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) vary in their ability to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) and should not be considered interchangeable, new research suggests.

In a comparative performance analysis of five commonly used FITs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, researchers found statistically significant differences in positivity rates, sensitivity, and specificity, as well as important differences in rates of unusable tests.

“Our findings have practical importance for FIT-based screening programs as these differences affect the need for repeated FIT, the yield of ACN detection, and the number of diagnostic colonoscopies that would be required to follow-up on abnormal findings,” wrote the researchers, led by Barcey T. Levy, MD, PhD, with University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Wide Variation Found

Despite widespread use of FITs for CRC screening, there is limited data to help guide test selection. Understanding the comparative performance of different FITs is “crucial” for a successful FIT-based screening program, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Levy and colleagues directly compared the performance of five commercially available FITs — including four qualitative tests (Hemoccult ICT, Hemosure iFOB, OC-Light S FIT, and QuickVue iFOB) and one quantitative test (OC-Auto FIT) — using colonoscopy as the reference standard.

Participants included a diverse group of 3761 adults (mean age, 62 years; 63% women). Each participant was given all five tests and completed them using the same stool sample. They sent the tests by first class mail to a central location, where FITs were analyzed by a trained professional on the day of receipt.

The primary outcome was test performance (sensitivity and specificity) for ACN, defined as advanced polyps or CRC.

A total of 320 participants (8.5%) were found to have ACN based on colonoscopy results, including nine with CRC (0.2%) — rates that are similar to those found in other studies.

The sensitivity for detecting ACN ranged from 10.1% (Hemoccult ICT) to 36.7% (OC-Light S FIT), and specificity varied from 85.5% (OC-Light S FIT) to 96.6% (Hemoccult ICT).

“Given the variation in FIT cutoffs reported by manufacturers, it is not surprising that tests with lower cutoffs (such as OC-Light S FIT) had higher sensitivity than tests with higher cutoffs (such as Hemoccult ICT),” Dr. Levy and colleagues wrote.

Test positivity rates varied fourfold across FITs, from 3.9% for Hemoccult ICT to 16.4% for OC-Light S FIT. 

The rates of tests deemed unevaluable (due to factors such as indeterminant results or user mistakes) ranged from 0.2% for OC-Auto FIT to 2.5% for QuickVue iFOB.

The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was observed with OC-Auto FIT (28.9%) and the lowest with Hemosure iFOB (18.2%). The negative predictive value was similar across tests, ranging from 92.2% to 93.3%, indicating consistent performance in ruling out disease.

The study also identified significant differences in test sensitivity based on factors such as the location of neoplasia (higher sensitivity for distal lesions) and patient characteristics (higher sensitivity in people with higher body mass index and lower income).

Dr. Levy and colleagues said their findings have implications both in terms of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening using FITs.

“Tests with lower sensitivity will miss more patients with CRC and advanced polyps, and tests with higher sensitivity and lower PPV will require more colonoscopies to detect patients with actionable findings,” they wrote.
 

‘Jaw-Dropping’ Results

The sensitivity results are “jaw-dropping,” Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice-president for cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “A patient should have at least a 50/50 chance of having their colorectal cancer detected with a stool test at the time of testing.”

“What these numbers show is that the level that the manufacturers believe their test is performing is not reproduced,” Dr. Smith added.

This study adds to “concerns that have been raised about the inherent limitations and the performance of these tests that have been cleared for use and that are supposed to be lifesaving,” he said.

Clearance by the US Food and Drug Administration should mean that there’s essentially “no risk to using the test in terms of the test itself being harmful,” Dr. Smith said. But that’s not the case with FITs “because it’s harmful if you have cancer and your test doesn’t find it.”

By way of study limitations, Dr. Levy and colleagues said it’s important to note that they did not evaluate the “programmatic” sensitivity of repeating FIT testing every 1-2 years, as is generally recommended in screening guidelines. Therefore, the sensitivity of a single FIT may be lower than that of a repeated FIT. Also, variability in the FIT collection process by participants might have affected the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article. Dr. Smith had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although considered a single class, fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) vary in their ability to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) and should not be considered interchangeable, new research suggests.

In a comparative performance analysis of five commonly used FITs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, researchers found statistically significant differences in positivity rates, sensitivity, and specificity, as well as important differences in rates of unusable tests.

“Our findings have practical importance for FIT-based screening programs as these differences affect the need for repeated FIT, the yield of ACN detection, and the number of diagnostic colonoscopies that would be required to follow-up on abnormal findings,” wrote the researchers, led by Barcey T. Levy, MD, PhD, with University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Wide Variation Found

Despite widespread use of FITs for CRC screening, there is limited data to help guide test selection. Understanding the comparative performance of different FITs is “crucial” for a successful FIT-based screening program, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Levy and colleagues directly compared the performance of five commercially available FITs — including four qualitative tests (Hemoccult ICT, Hemosure iFOB, OC-Light S FIT, and QuickVue iFOB) and one quantitative test (OC-Auto FIT) — using colonoscopy as the reference standard.

Participants included a diverse group of 3761 adults (mean age, 62 years; 63% women). Each participant was given all five tests and completed them using the same stool sample. They sent the tests by first class mail to a central location, where FITs were analyzed by a trained professional on the day of receipt.

The primary outcome was test performance (sensitivity and specificity) for ACN, defined as advanced polyps or CRC.

A total of 320 participants (8.5%) were found to have ACN based on colonoscopy results, including nine with CRC (0.2%) — rates that are similar to those found in other studies.

The sensitivity for detecting ACN ranged from 10.1% (Hemoccult ICT) to 36.7% (OC-Light S FIT), and specificity varied from 85.5% (OC-Light S FIT) to 96.6% (Hemoccult ICT).

“Given the variation in FIT cutoffs reported by manufacturers, it is not surprising that tests with lower cutoffs (such as OC-Light S FIT) had higher sensitivity than tests with higher cutoffs (such as Hemoccult ICT),” Dr. Levy and colleagues wrote.

Test positivity rates varied fourfold across FITs, from 3.9% for Hemoccult ICT to 16.4% for OC-Light S FIT. 

The rates of tests deemed unevaluable (due to factors such as indeterminant results or user mistakes) ranged from 0.2% for OC-Auto FIT to 2.5% for QuickVue iFOB.

The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was observed with OC-Auto FIT (28.9%) and the lowest with Hemosure iFOB (18.2%). The negative predictive value was similar across tests, ranging from 92.2% to 93.3%, indicating consistent performance in ruling out disease.

The study also identified significant differences in test sensitivity based on factors such as the location of neoplasia (higher sensitivity for distal lesions) and patient characteristics (higher sensitivity in people with higher body mass index and lower income).

Dr. Levy and colleagues said their findings have implications both in terms of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening using FITs.

“Tests with lower sensitivity will miss more patients with CRC and advanced polyps, and tests with higher sensitivity and lower PPV will require more colonoscopies to detect patients with actionable findings,” they wrote.
 

‘Jaw-Dropping’ Results

The sensitivity results are “jaw-dropping,” Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice-president for cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “A patient should have at least a 50/50 chance of having their colorectal cancer detected with a stool test at the time of testing.”

“What these numbers show is that the level that the manufacturers believe their test is performing is not reproduced,” Dr. Smith added.

This study adds to “concerns that have been raised about the inherent limitations and the performance of these tests that have been cleared for use and that are supposed to be lifesaving,” he said.

Clearance by the US Food and Drug Administration should mean that there’s essentially “no risk to using the test in terms of the test itself being harmful,” Dr. Smith said. But that’s not the case with FITs “because it’s harmful if you have cancer and your test doesn’t find it.”

By way of study limitations, Dr. Levy and colleagues said it’s important to note that they did not evaluate the “programmatic” sensitivity of repeating FIT testing every 1-2 years, as is generally recommended in screening guidelines. Therefore, the sensitivity of a single FIT may be lower than that of a repeated FIT. Also, variability in the FIT collection process by participants might have affected the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article. Dr. Smith had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although considered a single class, fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) vary in their ability to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) and should not be considered interchangeable, new research suggests.

In a comparative performance analysis of five commonly used FITs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, researchers found statistically significant differences in positivity rates, sensitivity, and specificity, as well as important differences in rates of unusable tests.

“Our findings have practical importance for FIT-based screening programs as these differences affect the need for repeated FIT, the yield of ACN detection, and the number of diagnostic colonoscopies that would be required to follow-up on abnormal findings,” wrote the researchers, led by Barcey T. Levy, MD, PhD, with University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Wide Variation Found

Despite widespread use of FITs for CRC screening, there is limited data to help guide test selection. Understanding the comparative performance of different FITs is “crucial” for a successful FIT-based screening program, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Levy and colleagues directly compared the performance of five commercially available FITs — including four qualitative tests (Hemoccult ICT, Hemosure iFOB, OC-Light S FIT, and QuickVue iFOB) and one quantitative test (OC-Auto FIT) — using colonoscopy as the reference standard.

Participants included a diverse group of 3761 adults (mean age, 62 years; 63% women). Each participant was given all five tests and completed them using the same stool sample. They sent the tests by first class mail to a central location, where FITs were analyzed by a trained professional on the day of receipt.

The primary outcome was test performance (sensitivity and specificity) for ACN, defined as advanced polyps or CRC.

A total of 320 participants (8.5%) were found to have ACN based on colonoscopy results, including nine with CRC (0.2%) — rates that are similar to those found in other studies.

The sensitivity for detecting ACN ranged from 10.1% (Hemoccult ICT) to 36.7% (OC-Light S FIT), and specificity varied from 85.5% (OC-Light S FIT) to 96.6% (Hemoccult ICT).

“Given the variation in FIT cutoffs reported by manufacturers, it is not surprising that tests with lower cutoffs (such as OC-Light S FIT) had higher sensitivity than tests with higher cutoffs (such as Hemoccult ICT),” Dr. Levy and colleagues wrote.

Test positivity rates varied fourfold across FITs, from 3.9% for Hemoccult ICT to 16.4% for OC-Light S FIT. 

The rates of tests deemed unevaluable (due to factors such as indeterminant results or user mistakes) ranged from 0.2% for OC-Auto FIT to 2.5% for QuickVue iFOB.

The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was observed with OC-Auto FIT (28.9%) and the lowest with Hemosure iFOB (18.2%). The negative predictive value was similar across tests, ranging from 92.2% to 93.3%, indicating consistent performance in ruling out disease.

The study also identified significant differences in test sensitivity based on factors such as the location of neoplasia (higher sensitivity for distal lesions) and patient characteristics (higher sensitivity in people with higher body mass index and lower income).

Dr. Levy and colleagues said their findings have implications both in terms of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening using FITs.

“Tests with lower sensitivity will miss more patients with CRC and advanced polyps, and tests with higher sensitivity and lower PPV will require more colonoscopies to detect patients with actionable findings,” they wrote.
 

‘Jaw-Dropping’ Results

The sensitivity results are “jaw-dropping,” Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice-president for cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “A patient should have at least a 50/50 chance of having their colorectal cancer detected with a stool test at the time of testing.”

“What these numbers show is that the level that the manufacturers believe their test is performing is not reproduced,” Dr. Smith added.

This study adds to “concerns that have been raised about the inherent limitations and the performance of these tests that have been cleared for use and that are supposed to be lifesaving,” he said.

Clearance by the US Food and Drug Administration should mean that there’s essentially “no risk to using the test in terms of the test itself being harmful,” Dr. Smith said. But that’s not the case with FITs “because it’s harmful if you have cancer and your test doesn’t find it.”

By way of study limitations, Dr. Levy and colleagues said it’s important to note that they did not evaluate the “programmatic” sensitivity of repeating FIT testing every 1-2 years, as is generally recommended in screening guidelines. Therefore, the sensitivity of a single FIT may be lower than that of a repeated FIT. Also, variability in the FIT collection process by participants might have affected the results.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article. Dr. Smith had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third-most diagnosed cancer after breast and lung cancer, and is the second leading cause of global cancer related deaths.¹ In 2023 in the United States, > 150,000 individuals were diagnosed with CRC and 52,000 died.²

Colonoscopy is an effective CRC screening method and the lone method recommended for polyp surveillance. Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) has been estimated to occur in about 6% to 26% of colonoscopies. ^3,4 The prevalence varies based on a variety of comorbidities, including immobility, diabetes mellitus, neurologic disorders, and use of opioids, with more occurrences of IBP noted in older adult, non-English speaking, and male individuals.^4-6

The quality of bowel preparation is integral to the effectiveness of screening and surveillance colonoscopies. IBP has been associated with missed adenomas and significantly lower adenoma detection rates.^7-9 In particular, IBP is independently associated with an increased risk of CRC in the future.³ Accordingly, the US Multisociety Task Force recommends repeat colonoscopies for individuals with IBP within 1 year.¹⁰ Ensuring that these individuals receive repeat colonoscopies is an essential part of CRC prevention. The benefit of repeat colonoscopy after IBP is highlighted by a retrospective analysis from Fung and colleagues that showed 81% of repeat colonoscopies had adequate bowel preparation, with higher numbers of adenomas detected on repeat compared to initial colonoscopies.¹¹

Given the impact of bowel preparation quality on the diagnostic capability of the colonoscopy, adherence to guidelines for repeat colonoscopies in cases of IBP is paramount for effective CRC prevention. This study aims to measure the frequency of repeat colonoscopy after IBP and the factors associated with adherence to recommendations.

METHODS

Individuals who underwent colonoscopy at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MVAMC) from January 1, 2016, to October 19, 2021, were identified to allow for 400 days of follow-up from the index colonoscopy to the data collection date. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the colonoscopy procedure capacity was reduced by 50% from June 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020, delaying nonurgent procedures, including screening and surveillance colonoscopies.

Individuals who underwent colonoscopy for CRC screening or polyp surveillance, or following a positive fecal immunohistochemistry test (FIT) or virtual computed tomography colonoscopy were included. Patients with colonoscopy indications for iron deficiency anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, disease activity assessment of inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal pain, or changes in bowel movement pattern were excluded. IBP was defined as recording a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of < 6, or < 2 in any segment, or described as poor or inadequate using the Aronchick scale.

Age, sex, race, marital status, distance to MVAMC, smoking status, comorbidities, and concurrent medication use, including antiplatelet, anticoagulation, and prescription opiates at the time of index colonoscopy were obtained from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) using structured query language processing of colonoscopy procedure notes to extract preparation scores and other procedure information. The CDW contains extracts from VHA clinical and administrative systems that contain complete clinical data from October 1999.¹² Current smoking status was defined as any smoking activity at the time the questionnaire was administered during a routine clinic visit within 400 days from the index colonoscopy.

Only individuals who were recommended to have repeat colonoscopy within 1 year were included. The intervals of 365 days and 400 days (1 year + about 1 additional month) were used in the event that the individual had a delay in scheduling their 1-year repeat colonoscopy. For individuals who did not undergo a colonoscopy at MVAMC within 400 days, a manual chart review of all available records was performed to determine whether a colonoscopy was performed at a non-VA facility.

Patients received written instructions for bowel preparation 2 weeks prior to the procedure. The preparation included magnesium citrate and a split dose of 4 liters of polyethylene glycol. Patients were also advised to start a low-fiber diet 3 days prior to the procedure and a clear liquid diet the day before the procedure. Patients with a history of IBP or those undergoing procedures with anesthesia received an additional 2 liters for a total of 6 liters of polyethylene glycol.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were reported as mean (SD) or median and IQR for continuous variables and percentage for categorical variables. Individuals who returned for colonoscopy within 400 days were compared to those who did not identify factors associated with adherence to recommendations. The data on individuals who returned for colonoscopy within 400 days were also analyzed for additional minor delays in the timing of the repeat colonoscopy. Continuous data were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. Categorical data were compared using X² or Fisher exact tests. Missing data were imputed from the analyses. All analyses were performed using SAS JMP Pro version 16. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 18,241 total colonoscopies performed between January 1, 2016, to October 19, 2021, and 13,818 colonoscopies had indications for screening for colon cancer, positive FIT, virtual colonoscopy, or surveillance. Of the 10,466 unique patients there were 5369 patients for polyp surveillance, 4054 patients for CRC screening, and 1043 patients for positive FIT or virtual colonoscopy. Of these, 571 individuals (5.5%) had IBP. Repeat colonoscopy within 1 year was recommended for 485 individuals (84.9%) who were included in this study (153 CRC screenings and 46 positive FITs) but not for 86 individuals (15.1%) (Figure 1). Among included patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.6 (7.2) years, and the majority were male (460 [94.8%]) and White (435 [89.7%]) (Table). Two hundred and forty-three (50.1%) were married.

Adherence to Recommended Interval Colonoscopy

Of the 485 patients with IBP who were recommended for follow-up colonoscopy, 287 (59.2%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year, and 198 (40.8%) did not; 17 patients (13.5%) had repeat colonoscopy within 366 to 400 days. Five (1.0%) individuals had a repeat colonoscopy the next day, and 77 (15.9%) had a repeat colonoscopy within 7 days. One hundred and twentysix (26.0%) individuals underwent no repeat colonoscopy during the study period (Figure 2).

To account for the COVID-19 pandemic, the adherence rate of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year prepandemic (January 1, 2016, to December 1, 2018) was calculated along with the adherence rate postpandemic (January 1, 2019 to the end of the study). The rates were similar: 199 of 330 (60.3%) individuals prepandemic vs 88 of 155 (56.8%) individuals postpandemic (Figure 3).

Significant Associations

Age, sex, and race were not associated with adherence to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Individuals living ≤ 40 miles from the endoscopy center were more likely to undergo a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year compared with those who lived > 40 miles away (61.7% vs 51.0%, P = .02). Current smoking status was associated with a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year (25.8% vs 35.9%; P = .02). There were no differences with respect to inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis, mental health diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis, or medications used, including opioids, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet therapy.

Outcomes

Among individuals who had a repeat colonoscopy the day after the index colonoscopy, 53 of 56 individuals (94.6%) had adequate bowel preparation. Among individuals who had a repeat colonoscopy within 7 days, 70 of 77 (90.9%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of 287 individuals with a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, 251 (87.5%) had adequate bowel preparation on the repeat colonoscopy. By 400 days after the index colonoscopy, 268 of 304 individuals (88.2%) had adequate bowel preparation.

In this study conducted at a large VA medical center, we found that 5.6% of individuals undergoing colonoscopies had IBP, a rate comparable to prior studies (6% to 26%).^3,4 Only 59.2% of individuals underwent repeat colonoscopies within 1 year, as recommended after an index colonoscopy with IBP. Smoking and living longer distances (> 40 miles) from the endoscopy center were associated with a decreased adherence to the repeat colonoscopy recommendation.

Current guidelines recommend repeat colonoscopy for individuals with IBP within 1 year.¹⁰ In cases of IBP, the advanced adenoma miss rate is 36% upon repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹³ Despite the importance of a follow-up colonoscopy, clinician adherence with this recommendation remains low.^10,14,15 However, in this study cohort, 485 of 571 individuals with IBP (84.9%) received recommendations for a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. In the US, only 31.9% of 260,314 colonoscopies with IBP included recommendations for a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁴ This could be related to variations in endoscopist practice as well as patient risk factors for developing polyps, including family history of cancer and personal history of prior polyps. The findings of multiple polyps, high-risk adenomas, and cancer on the index colonoscopy also influences the endoscopist for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁴

The timing for repeat colonoscopies within 1 year will be determined by the patients, clinicians, and available scheduling. In this study, the earlier repeat colonoscopies, especially those occurring the day after the index colonoscopy, had the highest success rate of adequate bowel preparation. In a prior study, repeating colonoscopies within the same day or the next day was also found to have a higher rate of adequate bowel preparation than repeat colonoscopies within 1 year (88.9% vs 83.5%).¹⁶

Ensuring the return of individuals with IBP for repeat colonoscopy is a challenging task. We identified that individuals who live further away from MVAMC and current smokers had a decreased probability of returning for a repeat colonoscopy. Toro and colleagues found a 68.7% return rate for a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year with individuals age ≥ 60 years, and patients who were White were less likely to proceed with a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁷ The study did not provide data regarding smoking status or distance to the endoscopy center.¹⁷ In a prior study of veterans, the dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse was associated with missed and canceled colonoscopy appointments.¹⁸ The distance to the endoscopy center has also been previously identified as a barrier to a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT.¹⁹ Although not identified in this study due to the homogenous demographic profile, social determinants of health such as socioeconomic status, education, and insurance coverage are known barriers to cancer screening but were not evaluated in this study.²⁰

Based on the identified risk factors, we have created a model for utilizing those risk factors to identify individuals at higher risk for noncompliance (ie, those who live further away from the endoscopy center or currently smoke). These individuals are proactively offered to use an intraprocedural bowel cleansing device to achieve adequate bowel preparation or priority rescheduling for a next-day colonoscopy.

Limitations

This study was a single-center study of the veteran population, which is predominantly White and male, thus limiting generalizability. The study is also limited by minimal available data on adenoma detection and colon cancer incidence on subsequent colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of IBP was 5.5% in individuals undergoing colonoscopy for colon cancer screening, surveillance, positive FIT, or computed tomography colonography. Only 59.2% of those with IBP underwent the recommended repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Smoking and distance to the endoscopy center were associated with a decreased adherence to the repeat colonoscopy recommendation. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that individuals with IBP return for timely repeat colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third-most diagnosed cancer after breast and lung cancer, and is the second leading cause of global cancer related deaths.¹ In 2023 in the United States, > 150,000 individuals were diagnosed with CRC and 52,000 died.²

Colonoscopy is an effective CRC screening method and the lone method recommended for polyp surveillance. Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) has been estimated to occur in about 6% to 26% of colonoscopies. ^3,4 The prevalence varies based on a variety of comorbidities, including immobility, diabetes mellitus, neurologic disorders, and use of opioids, with more occurrences of IBP noted in older adult, non-English speaking, and male individuals.^4-6

The quality of bowel preparation is integral to the effectiveness of screening and surveillance colonoscopies. IBP has been associated with missed adenomas and significantly lower adenoma detection rates.^7-9 In particular, IBP is independently associated with an increased risk of CRC in the future.³ Accordingly, the US Multisociety Task Force recommends repeat colonoscopies for individuals with IBP within 1 year.¹⁰ Ensuring that these individuals receive repeat colonoscopies is an essential part of CRC prevention. The benefit of repeat colonoscopy after IBP is highlighted by a retrospective analysis from Fung and colleagues that showed 81% of repeat colonoscopies had adequate bowel preparation, with higher numbers of adenomas detected on repeat compared to initial colonoscopies.¹¹

Given the impact of bowel preparation quality on the diagnostic capability of the colonoscopy, adherence to guidelines for repeat colonoscopies in cases of IBP is paramount for effective CRC prevention. This study aims to measure the frequency of repeat colonoscopy after IBP and the factors associated with adherence to recommendations.

METHODS

Individuals who underwent colonoscopy at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MVAMC) from January 1, 2016, to October 19, 2021, were identified to allow for 400 days of follow-up from the index colonoscopy to the data collection date. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the colonoscopy procedure capacity was reduced by 50% from June 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020, delaying nonurgent procedures, including screening and surveillance colonoscopies.

Individuals who underwent colonoscopy for CRC screening or polyp surveillance, or following a positive fecal immunohistochemistry test (FIT) or virtual computed tomography colonoscopy were included. Patients with colonoscopy indications for iron deficiency anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, disease activity assessment of inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal pain, or changes in bowel movement pattern were excluded. IBP was defined as recording a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of < 6, or < 2 in any segment, or described as poor or inadequate using the Aronchick scale.

Age, sex, race, marital status, distance to MVAMC, smoking status, comorbidities, and concurrent medication use, including antiplatelet, anticoagulation, and prescription opiates at the time of index colonoscopy were obtained from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) using structured query language processing of colonoscopy procedure notes to extract preparation scores and other procedure information. The CDW contains extracts from VHA clinical and administrative systems that contain complete clinical data from October 1999.¹² Current smoking status was defined as any smoking activity at the time the questionnaire was administered during a routine clinic visit within 400 days from the index colonoscopy.

Only individuals who were recommended to have repeat colonoscopy within 1 year were included. The intervals of 365 days and 400 days (1 year + about 1 additional month) were used in the event that the individual had a delay in scheduling their 1-year repeat colonoscopy. For individuals who did not undergo a colonoscopy at MVAMC within 400 days, a manual chart review of all available records was performed to determine whether a colonoscopy was performed at a non-VA facility.

Patients received written instructions for bowel preparation 2 weeks prior to the procedure. The preparation included magnesium citrate and a split dose of 4 liters of polyethylene glycol. Patients were also advised to start a low-fiber diet 3 days prior to the procedure and a clear liquid diet the day before the procedure. Patients with a history of IBP or those undergoing procedures with anesthesia received an additional 2 liters for a total of 6 liters of polyethylene glycol.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were reported as mean (SD) or median and IQR for continuous variables and percentage for categorical variables. Individuals who returned for colonoscopy within 400 days were compared to those who did not identify factors associated with adherence to recommendations. The data on individuals who returned for colonoscopy within 400 days were also analyzed for additional minor delays in the timing of the repeat colonoscopy. Continuous data were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. Categorical data were compared using X² or Fisher exact tests. Missing data were imputed from the analyses. All analyses were performed using SAS JMP Pro version 16. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 18,241 total colonoscopies performed between January 1, 2016, to October 19, 2021, and 13,818 colonoscopies had indications for screening for colon cancer, positive FIT, virtual colonoscopy, or surveillance. Of the 10,466 unique patients there were 5369 patients for polyp surveillance, 4054 patients for CRC screening, and 1043 patients for positive FIT or virtual colonoscopy. Of these, 571 individuals (5.5%) had IBP. Repeat colonoscopy within 1 year was recommended for 485 individuals (84.9%) who were included in this study (153 CRC screenings and 46 positive FITs) but not for 86 individuals (15.1%) (Figure 1). Among included patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.6 (7.2) years, and the majority were male (460 [94.8%]) and White (435 [89.7%]) (Table). Two hundred and forty-three (50.1%) were married.

Adherence to Recommended Interval Colonoscopy

Of the 485 patients with IBP who were recommended for follow-up colonoscopy, 287 (59.2%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year, and 198 (40.8%) did not; 17 patients (13.5%) had repeat colonoscopy within 366 to 400 days. Five (1.0%) individuals had a repeat colonoscopy the next day, and 77 (15.9%) had a repeat colonoscopy within 7 days. One hundred and twentysix (26.0%) individuals underwent no repeat colonoscopy during the study period (Figure 2).

To account for the COVID-19 pandemic, the adherence rate of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year prepandemic (January 1, 2016, to December 1, 2018) was calculated along with the adherence rate postpandemic (January 1, 2019 to the end of the study). The rates were similar: 199 of 330 (60.3%) individuals prepandemic vs 88 of 155 (56.8%) individuals postpandemic (Figure 3).

Significant Associations

Age, sex, and race were not associated with adherence to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Individuals living ≤ 40 miles from the endoscopy center were more likely to undergo a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year compared with those who lived > 40 miles away (61.7% vs 51.0%, P = .02). Current smoking status was associated with a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year (25.8% vs 35.9%; P = .02). There were no differences with respect to inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis, mental health diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis, or medications used, including opioids, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet therapy.

Outcomes

Among individuals who had a repeat colonoscopy the day after the index colonoscopy, 53 of 56 individuals (94.6%) had adequate bowel preparation. Among individuals who had a repeat colonoscopy within 7 days, 70 of 77 (90.9%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of 287 individuals with a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, 251 (87.5%) had adequate bowel preparation on the repeat colonoscopy. By 400 days after the index colonoscopy, 268 of 304 individuals (88.2%) had adequate bowel preparation.

In this study conducted at a large VA medical center, we found that 5.6% of individuals undergoing colonoscopies had IBP, a rate comparable to prior studies (6% to 26%).^3,4 Only 59.2% of individuals underwent repeat colonoscopies within 1 year, as recommended after an index colonoscopy with IBP. Smoking and living longer distances (> 40 miles) from the endoscopy center were associated with a decreased adherence to the repeat colonoscopy recommendation.

Current guidelines recommend repeat colonoscopy for individuals with IBP within 1 year.¹⁰ In cases of IBP, the advanced adenoma miss rate is 36% upon repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹³ Despite the importance of a follow-up colonoscopy, clinician adherence with this recommendation remains low.^10,14,15 However, in this study cohort, 485 of 571 individuals with IBP (84.9%) received recommendations for a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. In the US, only 31.9% of 260,314 colonoscopies with IBP included recommendations for a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁴ This could be related to variations in endoscopist practice as well as patient risk factors for developing polyps, including family history of cancer and personal history of prior polyps. The findings of multiple polyps, high-risk adenomas, and cancer on the index colonoscopy also influences the endoscopist for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁴

The timing for repeat colonoscopies within 1 year will be determined by the patients, clinicians, and available scheduling. In this study, the earlier repeat colonoscopies, especially those occurring the day after the index colonoscopy, had the highest success rate of adequate bowel preparation. In a prior study, repeating colonoscopies within the same day or the next day was also found to have a higher rate of adequate bowel preparation than repeat colonoscopies within 1 year (88.9% vs 83.5%).¹⁶

Ensuring the return of individuals with IBP for repeat colonoscopy is a challenging task. We identified that individuals who live further away from MVAMC and current smokers had a decreased probability of returning for a repeat colonoscopy. Toro and colleagues found a 68.7% return rate for a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year with individuals age ≥ 60 years, and patients who were White were less likely to proceed with a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁷ The study did not provide data regarding smoking status or distance to the endoscopy center.¹⁷ In a prior study of veterans, the dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse was associated with missed and canceled colonoscopy appointments.¹⁸ The distance to the endoscopy center has also been previously identified as a barrier to a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT.¹⁹ Although not identified in this study due to the homogenous demographic profile, social determinants of health such as socioeconomic status, education, and insurance coverage are known barriers to cancer screening but were not evaluated in this study.²⁰

Based on the identified risk factors, we have created a model for utilizing those risk factors to identify individuals at higher risk for noncompliance (ie, those who live further away from the endoscopy center or currently smoke). These individuals are proactively offered to use an intraprocedural bowel cleansing device to achieve adequate bowel preparation or priority rescheduling for a next-day colonoscopy.

Limitations

This study was a single-center study of the veteran population, which is predominantly White and male, thus limiting generalizability. The study is also limited by minimal available data on adenoma detection and colon cancer incidence on subsequent colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of IBP was 5.5% in individuals undergoing colonoscopy for colon cancer screening, surveillance, positive FIT, or computed tomography colonography. Only 59.2% of those with IBP underwent the recommended repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Smoking and distance to the endoscopy center were associated with a decreased adherence to the repeat colonoscopy recommendation. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that individuals with IBP return for timely repeat colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third-most diagnosed cancer after breast and lung cancer, and is the second leading cause of global cancer related deaths.¹ In 2023 in the United States, > 150,000 individuals were diagnosed with CRC and 52,000 died.²

Colonoscopy is an effective CRC screening method and the lone method recommended for polyp surveillance. Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) has been estimated to occur in about 6% to 26% of colonoscopies. ^3,4 The prevalence varies based on a variety of comorbidities, including immobility, diabetes mellitus, neurologic disorders, and use of opioids, with more occurrences of IBP noted in older adult, non-English speaking, and male individuals.^4-6

The quality of bowel preparation is integral to the effectiveness of screening and surveillance colonoscopies. IBP has been associated with missed adenomas and significantly lower adenoma detection rates.^7-9 In particular, IBP is independently associated with an increased risk of CRC in the future.³ Accordingly, the US Multisociety Task Force recommends repeat colonoscopies for individuals with IBP within 1 year.¹⁰ Ensuring that these individuals receive repeat colonoscopies is an essential part of CRC prevention. The benefit of repeat colonoscopy after IBP is highlighted by a retrospective analysis from Fung and colleagues that showed 81% of repeat colonoscopies had adequate bowel preparation, with higher numbers of adenomas detected on repeat compared to initial colonoscopies.¹¹

Given the impact of bowel preparation quality on the diagnostic capability of the colonoscopy, adherence to guidelines for repeat colonoscopies in cases of IBP is paramount for effective CRC prevention. This study aims to measure the frequency of repeat colonoscopy after IBP and the factors associated with adherence to recommendations.

METHODS

Individuals who underwent colonoscopy at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MVAMC) from January 1, 2016, to October 19, 2021, were identified to allow for 400 days of follow-up from the index colonoscopy to the data collection date. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the colonoscopy procedure capacity was reduced by 50% from June 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020, delaying nonurgent procedures, including screening and surveillance colonoscopies.

Individuals who underwent colonoscopy for CRC screening or polyp surveillance, or following a positive fecal immunohistochemistry test (FIT) or virtual computed tomography colonoscopy were included. Patients with colonoscopy indications for iron deficiency anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, disease activity assessment of inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal pain, or changes in bowel movement pattern were excluded. IBP was defined as recording a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of < 6, or < 2 in any segment, or described as poor or inadequate using the Aronchick scale.

Age, sex, race, marital status, distance to MVAMC, smoking status, comorbidities, and concurrent medication use, including antiplatelet, anticoagulation, and prescription opiates at the time of index colonoscopy were obtained from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) using structured query language processing of colonoscopy procedure notes to extract preparation scores and other procedure information. The CDW contains extracts from VHA clinical and administrative systems that contain complete clinical data from October 1999.¹² Current smoking status was defined as any smoking activity at the time the questionnaire was administered during a routine clinic visit within 400 days from the index colonoscopy.

Only individuals who were recommended to have repeat colonoscopy within 1 year were included. The intervals of 365 days and 400 days (1 year + about 1 additional month) were used in the event that the individual had a delay in scheduling their 1-year repeat colonoscopy. For individuals who did not undergo a colonoscopy at MVAMC within 400 days, a manual chart review of all available records was performed to determine whether a colonoscopy was performed at a non-VA facility.

Patients received written instructions for bowel preparation 2 weeks prior to the procedure. The preparation included magnesium citrate and a split dose of 4 liters of polyethylene glycol. Patients were also advised to start a low-fiber diet 3 days prior to the procedure and a clear liquid diet the day before the procedure. Patients with a history of IBP or those undergoing procedures with anesthesia received an additional 2 liters for a total of 6 liters of polyethylene glycol.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were reported as mean (SD) or median and IQR for continuous variables and percentage for categorical variables. Individuals who returned for colonoscopy within 400 days were compared to those who did not identify factors associated with adherence to recommendations. The data on individuals who returned for colonoscopy within 400 days were also analyzed for additional minor delays in the timing of the repeat colonoscopy. Continuous data were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. Categorical data were compared using X² or Fisher exact tests. Missing data were imputed from the analyses. All analyses were performed using SAS JMP Pro version 16. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 18,241 total colonoscopies performed between January 1, 2016, to October 19, 2021, and 13,818 colonoscopies had indications for screening for colon cancer, positive FIT, virtual colonoscopy, or surveillance. Of the 10,466 unique patients there were 5369 patients for polyp surveillance, 4054 patients for CRC screening, and 1043 patients for positive FIT or virtual colonoscopy. Of these, 571 individuals (5.5%) had IBP. Repeat colonoscopy within 1 year was recommended for 485 individuals (84.9%) who were included in this study (153 CRC screenings and 46 positive FITs) but not for 86 individuals (15.1%) (Figure 1). Among included patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.6 (7.2) years, and the majority were male (460 [94.8%]) and White (435 [89.7%]) (Table). Two hundred and forty-three (50.1%) were married.

Adherence to Recommended Interval Colonoscopy

Of the 485 patients with IBP who were recommended for follow-up colonoscopy, 287 (59.2%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year, and 198 (40.8%) did not; 17 patients (13.5%) had repeat colonoscopy within 366 to 400 days. Five (1.0%) individuals had a repeat colonoscopy the next day, and 77 (15.9%) had a repeat colonoscopy within 7 days. One hundred and twentysix (26.0%) individuals underwent no repeat colonoscopy during the study period (Figure 2).

To account for the COVID-19 pandemic, the adherence rate of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year prepandemic (January 1, 2016, to December 1, 2018) was calculated along with the adherence rate postpandemic (January 1, 2019 to the end of the study). The rates were similar: 199 of 330 (60.3%) individuals prepandemic vs 88 of 155 (56.8%) individuals postpandemic (Figure 3).

Significant Associations

Age, sex, and race were not associated with adherence to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Individuals living ≤ 40 miles from the endoscopy center were more likely to undergo a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year compared with those who lived > 40 miles away (61.7% vs 51.0%, P = .02). Current smoking status was associated with a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year (25.8% vs 35.9%; P = .02). There were no differences with respect to inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis, mental health diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis, or medications used, including opioids, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet therapy.

Outcomes

Among individuals who had a repeat colonoscopy the day after the index colonoscopy, 53 of 56 individuals (94.6%) had adequate bowel preparation. Among individuals who had a repeat colonoscopy within 7 days, 70 of 77 (90.9%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of 287 individuals with a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, 251 (87.5%) had adequate bowel preparation on the repeat colonoscopy. By 400 days after the index colonoscopy, 268 of 304 individuals (88.2%) had adequate bowel preparation.

In this study conducted at a large VA medical center, we found that 5.6% of individuals undergoing colonoscopies had IBP, a rate comparable to prior studies (6% to 26%).^3,4 Only 59.2% of individuals underwent repeat colonoscopies within 1 year, as recommended after an index colonoscopy with IBP. Smoking and living longer distances (> 40 miles) from the endoscopy center were associated with a decreased adherence to the repeat colonoscopy recommendation.

Current guidelines recommend repeat colonoscopy for individuals with IBP within 1 year.¹⁰ In cases of IBP, the advanced adenoma miss rate is 36% upon repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹³ Despite the importance of a follow-up colonoscopy, clinician adherence with this recommendation remains low.^10,14,15 However, in this study cohort, 485 of 571 individuals with IBP (84.9%) received recommendations for a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. In the US, only 31.9% of 260,314 colonoscopies with IBP included recommendations for a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁴ This could be related to variations in endoscopist practice as well as patient risk factors for developing polyps, including family history of cancer and personal history of prior polyps. The findings of multiple polyps, high-risk adenomas, and cancer on the index colonoscopy also influences the endoscopist for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁴

The timing for repeat colonoscopies within 1 year will be determined by the patients, clinicians, and available scheduling. In this study, the earlier repeat colonoscopies, especially those occurring the day after the index colonoscopy, had the highest success rate of adequate bowel preparation. In a prior study, repeating colonoscopies within the same day or the next day was also found to have a higher rate of adequate bowel preparation than repeat colonoscopies within 1 year (88.9% vs 83.5%).¹⁶

Ensuring the return of individuals with IBP for repeat colonoscopy is a challenging task. We identified that individuals who live further away from MVAMC and current smokers had a decreased probability of returning for a repeat colonoscopy. Toro and colleagues found a 68.7% return rate for a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year with individuals age ≥ 60 years, and patients who were White were less likely to proceed with a repeat colonoscopy within 1 year.¹⁷ The study did not provide data regarding smoking status or distance to the endoscopy center.¹⁷ In a prior study of veterans, the dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse was associated with missed and canceled colonoscopy appointments.¹⁸ The distance to the endoscopy center has also been previously identified as a barrier to a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT.¹⁹ Although not identified in this study due to the homogenous demographic profile, social determinants of health such as socioeconomic status, education, and insurance coverage are known barriers to cancer screening but were not evaluated in this study.²⁰

Based on the identified risk factors, we have created a model for utilizing those risk factors to identify individuals at higher risk for noncompliance (ie, those who live further away from the endoscopy center or currently smoke). These individuals are proactively offered to use an intraprocedural bowel cleansing device to achieve adequate bowel preparation or priority rescheduling for a next-day colonoscopy.

Limitations

This study was a single-center study of the veteran population, which is predominantly White and male, thus limiting generalizability. The study is also limited by minimal available data on adenoma detection and colon cancer incidence on subsequent colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of IBP was 5.5% in individuals undergoing colonoscopy for colon cancer screening, surveillance, positive FIT, or computed tomography colonography. Only 59.2% of those with IBP underwent the recommended repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Smoking and distance to the endoscopy center were associated with a decreased adherence to the repeat colonoscopy recommendation. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that individuals with IBP return for timely repeat colonoscopy.

A task force established by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) issued updated recommendations highlighting what they consider to be the highest priority quality indicators for colonoscopy, a list that, for the first time, includes adequate bowel preparation and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR).

“Endoscopy teams now have an updated set of guidelines which can be used to enhance the quality of their colonoscopies and should certainly use these current quality measures to ‘raise the bar’ on behalf of their patients,” task force member Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

The task force published the recommendations online August 21 in The American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. It represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on colonoscopy recommendations and incorporates new evidence published since 2015.

“The last set of quality indicators from this group was 9 years ago. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of new data published in colonoscopy quality,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Keeping up with that data is a challenge, and so guidelines such as these are important in helping clinicians synthesize data on quality of care and implement best practices,” said Dr. Gellad, who was not involved with the task force.
 

Two New Priority Indicators 

The task force identified 15 quality indicators, divided into preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure. It includes five “priority” indicators — two of which are new.

One is the rate of adequate bowel preparation, preferably defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥ 2 in each of three colon segments or by description of the preparation as excellent, good, or adequate. It has a performance target > 90%.

“Inadequate bowel preparation substantially increases the cost of colonoscopy delivery and creates risk and inconvenience for patients, thus warranting a ranking as a priority indicator,” the task force wrote.

Dr. Gellad explained that the addition of this priority indicator is “notable because it highlights the importance of bowel prep in high-quality colonoscopy. It also shifts more of the responsibility of bowel prep from the patient to the practice.”

The second new quality indicator is the SSLDR, which was selected due to its ability to contribute to cancer prevention.

Based on available evidence, the task force recommends a current minimum threshold for the SSLDR of 6%. “This is expected to be revised upward as evidence of increasing detection occurs,” they wrote.

Duke University

Dr. Gellad said the addition of SSLDR is “an important advance in these recommendations. We know that serrated adenomas are a precursor for colorectal cancer and that the detection of these subtle lesions is variable.

“Providing a benchmark encourages practices to measure the detection of serrated adenomas and intervene when rates are below benchmarks. Prior to these benchmarks, it was difficult to know where to peg our expectations,” Dr. Gellad added.
 

Changes to the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR)

The ADR remains a priority indicator in the update, albeit with changes.

To keep the ADR measurement consistent with current screening guidelines, the task force now recommends that the ADR be measured starting at age 45 rather than 50 years.

“ADR plays a critical role in evaluating the performance of the colonoscopists,” task force lead Douglas K. Rex, MD, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, said in the statement.

“It is recommended that ADR calculations include screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy but exclude indications of a positive noncolonoscopy screening test and therapeutic procedures for resection or treatment of known neoplasia, genetic cancer syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Rex explained.

The task force recommends a minimum ADR threshold of 35% (40% in men and 30% in women) and that colonoscopists with ADRs below 35% “undertake remedial measures to improve and to achieve acceptable performance.”
 

Additional Priorities 

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) — the percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy with intact colons who have full intubation of the cecum with photo documentation of cecal landmarks — remains a priority quality indicator and has a performance target ≥ 95%.

“A trained colonoscopist should achieve a high CIR with a very high level of safety,” the task force wrote. “Low CIRs have been associated with higher PCCRC [postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer] rates.” 

The final priority indicator is the rate of using recommended screening and surveillance intervals, which carries a performance target ≥ 90%.

“We recommend that quality improvement efforts initially focus on high-priority indicators and then progress to other indicators once it is ascertained that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions,” the task force wrote.

“The priority indicators are absolutely important for practices to implement,” Dr. Gellad said.

“There is compelling evidence that these measures are correlated with clinically important outcomes, particularly ADR,” he added. “Many practices already capture this data, and the changes in ADR calculation make measurement less burdensome. Hopefully, this will encourage more practices to collect and report these measures.” 

Dr. Rex is a consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, GI Supply, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; receives research support from Olympus, Medivators, Erbe USA, and Braintree Laboratories; and is a shareholder in Satisfai Health. Dr. Shaheen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gellad has consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A task force established by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) issued updated recommendations highlighting what they consider to be the highest priority quality indicators for colonoscopy, a list that, for the first time, includes adequate bowel preparation and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR).

“Endoscopy teams now have an updated set of guidelines which can be used to enhance the quality of their colonoscopies and should certainly use these current quality measures to ‘raise the bar’ on behalf of their patients,” task force member Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

The task force published the recommendations online August 21 in The American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. It represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on colonoscopy recommendations and incorporates new evidence published since 2015.

“The last set of quality indicators from this group was 9 years ago. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of new data published in colonoscopy quality,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Keeping up with that data is a challenge, and so guidelines such as these are important in helping clinicians synthesize data on quality of care and implement best practices,” said Dr. Gellad, who was not involved with the task force.
 

Two New Priority Indicators 

The task force identified 15 quality indicators, divided into preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure. It includes five “priority” indicators — two of which are new.

One is the rate of adequate bowel preparation, preferably defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥ 2 in each of three colon segments or by description of the preparation as excellent, good, or adequate. It has a performance target > 90%.

“Inadequate bowel preparation substantially increases the cost of colonoscopy delivery and creates risk and inconvenience for patients, thus warranting a ranking as a priority indicator,” the task force wrote.

Dr. Gellad explained that the addition of this priority indicator is “notable because it highlights the importance of bowel prep in high-quality colonoscopy. It also shifts more of the responsibility of bowel prep from the patient to the practice.”

The second new quality indicator is the SSLDR, which was selected due to its ability to contribute to cancer prevention.

Based on available evidence, the task force recommends a current minimum threshold for the SSLDR of 6%. “This is expected to be revised upward as evidence of increasing detection occurs,” they wrote.

Duke University

Dr. Gellad said the addition of SSLDR is “an important advance in these recommendations. We know that serrated adenomas are a precursor for colorectal cancer and that the detection of these subtle lesions is variable.

“Providing a benchmark encourages practices to measure the detection of serrated adenomas and intervene when rates are below benchmarks. Prior to these benchmarks, it was difficult to know where to peg our expectations,” Dr. Gellad added.
 

Changes to the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR)

The ADR remains a priority indicator in the update, albeit with changes.

To keep the ADR measurement consistent with current screening guidelines, the task force now recommends that the ADR be measured starting at age 45 rather than 50 years.

“ADR plays a critical role in evaluating the performance of the colonoscopists,” task force lead Douglas K. Rex, MD, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, said in the statement.

“It is recommended that ADR calculations include screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy but exclude indications of a positive noncolonoscopy screening test and therapeutic procedures for resection or treatment of known neoplasia, genetic cancer syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Rex explained.

The task force recommends a minimum ADR threshold of 35% (40% in men and 30% in women) and that colonoscopists with ADRs below 35% “undertake remedial measures to improve and to achieve acceptable performance.”
 

Additional Priorities 

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) — the percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy with intact colons who have full intubation of the cecum with photo documentation of cecal landmarks — remains a priority quality indicator and has a performance target ≥ 95%.

“A trained colonoscopist should achieve a high CIR with a very high level of safety,” the task force wrote. “Low CIRs have been associated with higher PCCRC [postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer] rates.” 

The final priority indicator is the rate of using recommended screening and surveillance intervals, which carries a performance target ≥ 90%.

“We recommend that quality improvement efforts initially focus on high-priority indicators and then progress to other indicators once it is ascertained that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions,” the task force wrote.

“The priority indicators are absolutely important for practices to implement,” Dr. Gellad said.

“There is compelling evidence that these measures are correlated with clinically important outcomes, particularly ADR,” he added. “Many practices already capture this data, and the changes in ADR calculation make measurement less burdensome. Hopefully, this will encourage more practices to collect and report these measures.” 

Dr. Rex is a consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, GI Supply, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; receives research support from Olympus, Medivators, Erbe USA, and Braintree Laboratories; and is a shareholder in Satisfai Health. Dr. Shaheen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gellad has consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A task force established by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) issued updated recommendations highlighting what they consider to be the highest priority quality indicators for colonoscopy, a list that, for the first time, includes adequate bowel preparation and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR).

“Endoscopy teams now have an updated set of guidelines which can be used to enhance the quality of their colonoscopies and should certainly use these current quality measures to ‘raise the bar’ on behalf of their patients,” task force member Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

The task force published the recommendations online August 21 in The American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. It represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on colonoscopy recommendations and incorporates new evidence published since 2015.

“The last set of quality indicators from this group was 9 years ago. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of new data published in colonoscopy quality,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Keeping up with that data is a challenge, and so guidelines such as these are important in helping clinicians synthesize data on quality of care and implement best practices,” said Dr. Gellad, who was not involved with the task force.
 

Two New Priority Indicators 

The task force identified 15 quality indicators, divided into preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure. It includes five “priority” indicators — two of which are new.

One is the rate of adequate bowel preparation, preferably defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥ 2 in each of three colon segments or by description of the preparation as excellent, good, or adequate. It has a performance target > 90%.

“Inadequate bowel preparation substantially increases the cost of colonoscopy delivery and creates risk and inconvenience for patients, thus warranting a ranking as a priority indicator,” the task force wrote.

Dr. Gellad explained that the addition of this priority indicator is “notable because it highlights the importance of bowel prep in high-quality colonoscopy. It also shifts more of the responsibility of bowel prep from the patient to the practice.”

The second new quality indicator is the SSLDR, which was selected due to its ability to contribute to cancer prevention.

Based on available evidence, the task force recommends a current minimum threshold for the SSLDR of 6%. “This is expected to be revised upward as evidence of increasing detection occurs,” they wrote.

Duke University

Dr. Gellad said the addition of SSLDR is “an important advance in these recommendations. We know that serrated adenomas are a precursor for colorectal cancer and that the detection of these subtle lesions is variable.

“Providing a benchmark encourages practices to measure the detection of serrated adenomas and intervene when rates are below benchmarks. Prior to these benchmarks, it was difficult to know where to peg our expectations,” Dr. Gellad added.
 

Changes to the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR)

The ADR remains a priority indicator in the update, albeit with changes.

To keep the ADR measurement consistent with current screening guidelines, the task force now recommends that the ADR be measured starting at age 45 rather than 50 years.

“ADR plays a critical role in evaluating the performance of the colonoscopists,” task force lead Douglas K. Rex, MD, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, said in the statement.

“It is recommended that ADR calculations include screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy but exclude indications of a positive noncolonoscopy screening test and therapeutic procedures for resection or treatment of known neoplasia, genetic cancer syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Rex explained.

The task force recommends a minimum ADR threshold of 35% (40% in men and 30% in women) and that colonoscopists with ADRs below 35% “undertake remedial measures to improve and to achieve acceptable performance.”
 

Additional Priorities 

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) — the percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy with intact colons who have full intubation of the cecum with photo documentation of cecal landmarks — remains a priority quality indicator and has a performance target ≥ 95%.

“A trained colonoscopist should achieve a high CIR with a very high level of safety,” the task force wrote. “Low CIRs have been associated with higher PCCRC [postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer] rates.” 

The final priority indicator is the rate of using recommended screening and surveillance intervals, which carries a performance target ≥ 90%.

“We recommend that quality improvement efforts initially focus on high-priority indicators and then progress to other indicators once it is ascertained that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions,” the task force wrote.

“The priority indicators are absolutely important for practices to implement,” Dr. Gellad said.

“There is compelling evidence that these measures are correlated with clinically important outcomes, particularly ADR,” he added. “Many practices already capture this data, and the changes in ADR calculation make measurement less burdensome. Hopefully, this will encourage more practices to collect and report these measures.” 

Dr. Rex is a consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, GI Supply, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; receives research support from Olympus, Medivators, Erbe USA, and Braintree Laboratories; and is a shareholder in Satisfai Health. Dr. Shaheen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gellad has consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A dietary pattern linked to the microbial signature of colorectal cancer (CRC) is positively correlated with an increased risk for CRC, particularly for tumors with detectable Fusobacterium nucleatum, the pks strain of Escherichia coli, and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF).

METHODOLOGY:

• To date, no known studies have investigated how a dietary pattern (rather than just individual foods or nutrients) specifically directed at CRC-related microbes may contribute to an increased CRC risk.
• Using stool metagenomes and dietary information from 307 men and 212 women, researchers identified and then validated a dietary pattern specifically linked to an established CRC-related gut microbial signature, which they termed the CRC Microbial Dietary Score (CMDS).
• They then investigated the association between CMDS and the risk for CRC in 259,200 participants (50,637 men and 208,563 women) from three large US cohorts where health professionals provided detailed information on various lifestyle factors over long follow-up periods.
• Researchers also analyzed the risk for CRC on the basis of the presence of gut bacteria, such as F nucleatum, pks+ E coli, and ETBF, in the tumor tissues of the participants who underwent surgical resection for CRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• The CMDS was characterized by high intake of processed foods and low intake of fiber-rich foods.
• Over 6,467,378 person-years assessed in the three US cohorts, 3854 cases of incident CRC were documented, with 1172, 1096, and 1119 cases measured for F nucleatum, pks+ E coli, and ETBF, respectively.
• A higher CMDS was associated with an increased risk for CRC after adjusting for putative CRC risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; P_trend < .001).
• The association between CMDS and the risk for CRC was stronger for tumors with detectable levels of F nucleatum (HR, 2.51; P_trend < .001), pks+ E coli (HR, 1.68; P_trend = .005), and ETBF (HR, 2.06; P_trend = .016).

IN PRACTICE:

“A dietary pattern with a low consumption of processed foods may help prevent colorectal cancer through modulation of the gut microbiome. The dietary pattern modulating the colorectal cancer–related gut microbial signature may particularly help prevent tumoral microbial positive colorectal cancer, which tends to have a worse prognosis,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kai Wang and Chun-Han Lo, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s observational design may have limited the ability to establish causality between dietary patterns and the risk for CRC. The inclusion of participants who were all health professionals from a predominantly White US population may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations. The reliance on self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias and affected the accuracy of the dietary pattern assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by various sources, including the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Research UK Grand Challenge Award. One author served as a consultant for some pharmaceutical companies, and another received funding from various sources, both unrelated to this study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A dietary pattern linked to the microbial signature of colorectal cancer (CRC) is positively correlated with an increased risk for CRC, particularly for tumors with detectable Fusobacterium nucleatum, the pks strain of Escherichia coli, and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF).

METHODOLOGY:

• To date, no known studies have investigated how a dietary pattern (rather than just individual foods or nutrients) specifically directed at CRC-related microbes may contribute to an increased CRC risk.
• Using stool metagenomes and dietary information from 307 men and 212 women, researchers identified and then validated a dietary pattern specifically linked to an established CRC-related gut microbial signature, which they termed the CRC Microbial Dietary Score (CMDS).
• They then investigated the association between CMDS and the risk for CRC in 259,200 participants (50,637 men and 208,563 women) from three large US cohorts where health professionals provided detailed information on various lifestyle factors over long follow-up periods.
• Researchers also analyzed the risk for CRC on the basis of the presence of gut bacteria, such as F nucleatum, pks+ E coli, and ETBF, in the tumor tissues of the participants who underwent surgical resection for CRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• The CMDS was characterized by high intake of processed foods and low intake of fiber-rich foods.
• Over 6,467,378 person-years assessed in the three US cohorts, 3854 cases of incident CRC were documented, with 1172, 1096, and 1119 cases measured for F nucleatum, pks+ E coli, and ETBF, respectively.
• A higher CMDS was associated with an increased risk for CRC after adjusting for putative CRC risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; P_trend < .001).
• The association between CMDS and the risk for CRC was stronger for tumors with detectable levels of F nucleatum (HR, 2.51; P_trend < .001), pks+ E coli (HR, 1.68; P_trend = .005), and ETBF (HR, 2.06; P_trend = .016).

IN PRACTICE:

“A dietary pattern with a low consumption of processed foods may help prevent colorectal cancer through modulation of the gut microbiome. The dietary pattern modulating the colorectal cancer–related gut microbial signature may particularly help prevent tumoral microbial positive colorectal cancer, which tends to have a worse prognosis,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kai Wang and Chun-Han Lo, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s observational design may have limited the ability to establish causality between dietary patterns and the risk for CRC. The inclusion of participants who were all health professionals from a predominantly White US population may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations. The reliance on self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias and affected the accuracy of the dietary pattern assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by various sources, including the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Research UK Grand Challenge Award. One author served as a consultant for some pharmaceutical companies, and another received funding from various sources, both unrelated to this study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A dietary pattern linked to the microbial signature of colorectal cancer (CRC) is positively correlated with an increased risk for CRC, particularly for tumors with detectable Fusobacterium nucleatum, the pks strain of Escherichia coli, and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF).

METHODOLOGY:

• To date, no known studies have investigated how a dietary pattern (rather than just individual foods or nutrients) specifically directed at CRC-related microbes may contribute to an increased CRC risk.
• Using stool metagenomes and dietary information from 307 men and 212 women, researchers identified and then validated a dietary pattern specifically linked to an established CRC-related gut microbial signature, which they termed the CRC Microbial Dietary Score (CMDS).
• They then investigated the association between CMDS and the risk for CRC in 259,200 participants (50,637 men and 208,563 women) from three large US cohorts where health professionals provided detailed information on various lifestyle factors over long follow-up periods.
• Researchers also analyzed the risk for CRC on the basis of the presence of gut bacteria, such as F nucleatum, pks+ E coli, and ETBF, in the tumor tissues of the participants who underwent surgical resection for CRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• The CMDS was characterized by high intake of processed foods and low intake of fiber-rich foods.
• Over 6,467,378 person-years assessed in the three US cohorts, 3854 cases of incident CRC were documented, with 1172, 1096, and 1119 cases measured for F nucleatum, pks+ E coli, and ETBF, respectively.
• A higher CMDS was associated with an increased risk for CRC after adjusting for putative CRC risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; P_trend < .001).
• The association between CMDS and the risk for CRC was stronger for tumors with detectable levels of F nucleatum (HR, 2.51; P_trend < .001), pks+ E coli (HR, 1.68; P_trend = .005), and ETBF (HR, 2.06; P_trend = .016).

IN PRACTICE:

“A dietary pattern with a low consumption of processed foods may help prevent colorectal cancer through modulation of the gut microbiome. The dietary pattern modulating the colorectal cancer–related gut microbial signature may particularly help prevent tumoral microbial positive colorectal cancer, which tends to have a worse prognosis,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kai Wang and Chun-Han Lo, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s observational design may have limited the ability to establish causality between dietary patterns and the risk for CRC. The inclusion of participants who were all health professionals from a predominantly White US population may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations. The reliance on self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias and affected the accuracy of the dietary pattern assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by various sources, including the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Research UK Grand Challenge Award. One author served as a consultant for some pharmaceutical companies, and another received funding from various sources, both unrelated to this study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.