Colon and Rectal

Mental health, family planning, and career aspirations are among the unique challenges faced by younger adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) — issues that may not be adequately addressed by cancer care providers, a new survey showed.

“We tend to think of cancer as a disease of older populations, but it’s impacting younger people who are in important developmental stages of their lives,” said Samantha Savitch, MD, in a podcast from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress 2024, where she presented her research.

In fact, since 1994, cases of young-onset CRC have increased by more than 50%, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“Our goal with the study was to better understand what young adults with colorectal cancer really care about, so that we can ensure that we’re properly addressing their needs as part of like comprehensive cancer care,” Savitch, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, explained.

The researchers interviewed a sample of 35 patients who were diagnosed with CRC before the age of 50 years. The researchers asked patients open-ended questions about the influence their CRC diagnosis had on their lives, the daily challenges they experienced, as well as concerns about the future.

Patients expressed the greatest concern about four areas of health and well-being: Physical health, mental health, family planning, and career.

For physical health, patients worried about incontinence, loss of vitality, and expenses related to healthcare. On the mental health front, patients expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding long-term survival and anxiety about the timing of their diagnosis. Family planning was a key issue as well, with patients highlighting uncertainties about fertility after chemotherapy. On the career front, patients also noted concerns surrounding job security, challenges pursuing advanced degrees, and a reliance on benefits from employment.

These concerns were not gender-specific. Career, physical health, financial security, mental health, fertility, and family planning were equally important to men and women.

Savitch provided a sample of quotes from interviewees that illustrated their specific concerns in each category.

A 47-year-old man reflected on his physical health now that his rectum is gone. “I no longer have that feeling of sensation like in my cheeks; basically, the cheeks and the anus area is all dead,” he said. A 48-year-old woman discussed the havoc chemotherapy wrecked on her teeth. “I don’t want to get emotional, I just went to the dentist yesterday, and I just get so frustrated ... All these things to pay. I should be happy to be alive,” she said. But “I have so much money in my mouth.”

On the mental health front, a 34-year-old woman described the fear she felt about a cancer recurrence following the birth of her daughter. After a CT scan, she had to experience 2 weeks of limbo, thinking, “I have cancer again.” She had begun a journal dedicated to her daughter in case she had a recurrence and died. “I always think that I am going to die. I think about death every day.”

Reflecting on her future fertility, a 22-year-old woman recalled the uncertainty surrounding whether chemotherapy would affect her ability to have children. “I would get really nervous,” she said, “so I was like, ‘I will do the injections. I just want to save a few of my eggs just in case.’ ” A 33-year-old man opted not to freeze his sperm because “I didn’t know if I was going to live or die, I didn’t know anything ... I barely had any money. So, like, do I risk putting this money up to freeze something when I don’t even know if I am going to be here or not?”

On the career front, a 48-year-old man highlighted how his cancer completely changed his family’s life.”I went from being a provider for my family, making enough money to take care of my family, where my wife was staying home, to now not being able to work and her having to pick up little side jobs and stuff just to try to help make ends meet.”

“These aspects of cancer care are rarely discussed, so it is important to acknowledge that patients care about fertility and family planning, their career aspirations, building assets — all things they must put on hold because of their cancer diagnosis,” Savitch said in a news release.

“This goes beyond just colorectal cancer,” Savitch added. “There are a lot of patients experiencing similar challenges, so we need more research to better understand these issues in patients with colorectal cancer as well as other cancers and, ultimately, to restructure our comprehensive cancer programs to make sure we are treating the patient and not just the disease.”

Support for the study was provided by the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan. Savitch had no relevant disclosures.

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

Mental health, family planning, and career aspirations are among the unique challenges faced by younger adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) — issues that may not be adequately addressed by cancer care providers, a new survey showed.

“We tend to think of cancer as a disease of older populations, but it’s impacting younger people who are in important developmental stages of their lives,” said Samantha Savitch, MD, in a podcast from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress 2024, where she presented her research.

In fact, since 1994, cases of young-onset CRC have increased by more than 50%, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“Our goal with the study was to better understand what young adults with colorectal cancer really care about, so that we can ensure that we’re properly addressing their needs as part of like comprehensive cancer care,” Savitch, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, explained.

The researchers interviewed a sample of 35 patients who were diagnosed with CRC before the age of 50 years. The researchers asked patients open-ended questions about the influence their CRC diagnosis had on their lives, the daily challenges they experienced, as well as concerns about the future.

Patients expressed the greatest concern about four areas of health and well-being: Physical health, mental health, family planning, and career.

For physical health, patients worried about incontinence, loss of vitality, and expenses related to healthcare. On the mental health front, patients expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding long-term survival and anxiety about the timing of their diagnosis. Family planning was a key issue as well, with patients highlighting uncertainties about fertility after chemotherapy. On the career front, patients also noted concerns surrounding job security, challenges pursuing advanced degrees, and a reliance on benefits from employment.

These concerns were not gender-specific. Career, physical health, financial security, mental health, fertility, and family planning were equally important to men and women.

Savitch provided a sample of quotes from interviewees that illustrated their specific concerns in each category.

A 47-year-old man reflected on his physical health now that his rectum is gone. “I no longer have that feeling of sensation like in my cheeks; basically, the cheeks and the anus area is all dead,” he said. A 48-year-old woman discussed the havoc chemotherapy wrecked on her teeth. “I don’t want to get emotional, I just went to the dentist yesterday, and I just get so frustrated ... All these things to pay. I should be happy to be alive,” she said. But “I have so much money in my mouth.”

On the mental health front, a 34-year-old woman described the fear she felt about a cancer recurrence following the birth of her daughter. After a CT scan, she had to experience 2 weeks of limbo, thinking, “I have cancer again.” She had begun a journal dedicated to her daughter in case she had a recurrence and died. “I always think that I am going to die. I think about death every day.”

Reflecting on her future fertility, a 22-year-old woman recalled the uncertainty surrounding whether chemotherapy would affect her ability to have children. “I would get really nervous,” she said, “so I was like, ‘I will do the injections. I just want to save a few of my eggs just in case.’ ” A 33-year-old man opted not to freeze his sperm because “I didn’t know if I was going to live or die, I didn’t know anything ... I barely had any money. So, like, do I risk putting this money up to freeze something when I don’t even know if I am going to be here or not?”

On the career front, a 48-year-old man highlighted how his cancer completely changed his family’s life.”I went from being a provider for my family, making enough money to take care of my family, where my wife was staying home, to now not being able to work and her having to pick up little side jobs and stuff just to try to help make ends meet.”

“These aspects of cancer care are rarely discussed, so it is important to acknowledge that patients care about fertility and family planning, their career aspirations, building assets — all things they must put on hold because of their cancer diagnosis,” Savitch said in a news release.

“This goes beyond just colorectal cancer,” Savitch added. “There are a lot of patients experiencing similar challenges, so we need more research to better understand these issues in patients with colorectal cancer as well as other cancers and, ultimately, to restructure our comprehensive cancer programs to make sure we are treating the patient and not just the disease.”

Support for the study was provided by the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan. Savitch had no relevant disclosures.

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

Mental health, family planning, and career aspirations are among the unique challenges faced by younger adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) — issues that may not be adequately addressed by cancer care providers, a new survey showed.

“We tend to think of cancer as a disease of older populations, but it’s impacting younger people who are in important developmental stages of their lives,” said Samantha Savitch, MD, in a podcast from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress 2024, where she presented her research.

In fact, since 1994, cases of young-onset CRC have increased by more than 50%, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“Our goal with the study was to better understand what young adults with colorectal cancer really care about, so that we can ensure that we’re properly addressing their needs as part of like comprehensive cancer care,” Savitch, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, explained.

The researchers interviewed a sample of 35 patients who were diagnosed with CRC before the age of 50 years. The researchers asked patients open-ended questions about the influence their CRC diagnosis had on their lives, the daily challenges they experienced, as well as concerns about the future.

Patients expressed the greatest concern about four areas of health and well-being: Physical health, mental health, family planning, and career.

For physical health, patients worried about incontinence, loss of vitality, and expenses related to healthcare. On the mental health front, patients expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding long-term survival and anxiety about the timing of their diagnosis. Family planning was a key issue as well, with patients highlighting uncertainties about fertility after chemotherapy. On the career front, patients also noted concerns surrounding job security, challenges pursuing advanced degrees, and a reliance on benefits from employment.

These concerns were not gender-specific. Career, physical health, financial security, mental health, fertility, and family planning were equally important to men and women.

Savitch provided a sample of quotes from interviewees that illustrated their specific concerns in each category.

A 47-year-old man reflected on his physical health now that his rectum is gone. “I no longer have that feeling of sensation like in my cheeks; basically, the cheeks and the anus area is all dead,” he said. A 48-year-old woman discussed the havoc chemotherapy wrecked on her teeth. “I don’t want to get emotional, I just went to the dentist yesterday, and I just get so frustrated ... All these things to pay. I should be happy to be alive,” she said. But “I have so much money in my mouth.”

On the mental health front, a 34-year-old woman described the fear she felt about a cancer recurrence following the birth of her daughter. After a CT scan, she had to experience 2 weeks of limbo, thinking, “I have cancer again.” She had begun a journal dedicated to her daughter in case she had a recurrence and died. “I always think that I am going to die. I think about death every day.”

Reflecting on her future fertility, a 22-year-old woman recalled the uncertainty surrounding whether chemotherapy would affect her ability to have children. “I would get really nervous,” she said, “so I was like, ‘I will do the injections. I just want to save a few of my eggs just in case.’ ” A 33-year-old man opted not to freeze his sperm because “I didn’t know if I was going to live or die, I didn’t know anything ... I barely had any money. So, like, do I risk putting this money up to freeze something when I don’t even know if I am going to be here or not?”

On the career front, a 48-year-old man highlighted how his cancer completely changed his family’s life.”I went from being a provider for my family, making enough money to take care of my family, where my wife was staying home, to now not being able to work and her having to pick up little side jobs and stuff just to try to help make ends meet.”

“These aspects of cancer care are rarely discussed, so it is important to acknowledge that patients care about fertility and family planning, their career aspirations, building assets — all things they must put on hold because of their cancer diagnosis,” Savitch said in a news release.

“This goes beyond just colorectal cancer,” Savitch added. “There are a lot of patients experiencing similar challenges, so we need more research to better understand these issues in patients with colorectal cancer as well as other cancers and, ultimately, to restructure our comprehensive cancer programs to make sure we are treating the patient and not just the disease.”

Support for the study was provided by the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan. Savitch had no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with a significant decrease in the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to the results of a retrospective study.

“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.

Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.

The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Retrospective Database Analysis

Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.

They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.

Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).

Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
 

A Proposed Protective Effect

Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.

“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”

This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”

These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.

“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”

Hypothesis-Generating Results

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research. 

"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. 

She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D. 

Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said. 

“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained. 

Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention." 

The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults aged 45-49 years are as likely as are those aged 50 years to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an initial screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up with a colonoscopy if needed, a new study has found.

The study also found a similar low 3% rate of CRC detected at colonoscopy in both the younger and older adults.

“Our study suggests that adults ages 45-49 have a colorectal cancer risk that is similar to what we see in adults age 50,” senior author Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research (DOR) in Oakland, California, said in a news release.

“The low number of cancers we found also provides support for initially offering younger adults a non-invasive test, like FIT, to determine which patients would benefit from a colonoscopy,” Lee noted.

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center

Timely and Important Question

“This study addresses a timely and important clinical question, namely, is FIT an acceptable screening modality in patients aged 45-49,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“The finding that FIT completion and yield in younger patients is similar to those aged 50 and above is good news because it supports the use of this screening modality in the younger cohort,” said Gellad, section chief, gastroenterology, Durham VA Health Care System.

Duke University

FIT First Fits With Younger Adults’ Busy Lives

“Overall, people under 50 have lower incidence of cancer than people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. However, if you do a test like FIT first, you can improve the yield of colonoscopy, which is a much more efficient strategy,” Levin said.

He noted that younger people are the least likely to be screened.

“They are busy with work and family responsibilities and may not realize that they are at risk for CRC. It is important to offer them a test that is easy to perform and does not require them to miss a day of work or arrange for a driver. They should be offered an option to screen with a stool-based test as an easy way to fit CRC screening into their busy lives,” Levin said.

Gellad said the study also highlights the limitations of FIT, “namely, that the low uptake and suboptimal colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, also extend into the lower age group.”

Additionally, Gellad said he hopes other large systems will replicate this study to address the generalizability of these findings outside the Kaiser system.

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Sydney R. Garfield Memorial Fund. Disclosures for study authors are available with the original article. Gellad consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a co-founder of Higgs Boson, Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults aged 45-49 years are as likely as are those aged 50 years to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an initial screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up with a colonoscopy if needed, a new study has found.

The study also found a similar low 3% rate of CRC detected at colonoscopy in both the younger and older adults.

“Our study suggests that adults ages 45-49 have a colorectal cancer risk that is similar to what we see in adults age 50,” senior author Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research (DOR) in Oakland, California, said in a news release.

“The low number of cancers we found also provides support for initially offering younger adults a non-invasive test, like FIT, to determine which patients would benefit from a colonoscopy,” Lee noted.

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center

Timely and Important Question

“This study addresses a timely and important clinical question, namely, is FIT an acceptable screening modality in patients aged 45-49,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“The finding that FIT completion and yield in younger patients is similar to those aged 50 and above is good news because it supports the use of this screening modality in the younger cohort,” said Gellad, section chief, gastroenterology, Durham VA Health Care System.

Duke University

FIT First Fits With Younger Adults’ Busy Lives

“Overall, people under 50 have lower incidence of cancer than people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. However, if you do a test like FIT first, you can improve the yield of colonoscopy, which is a much more efficient strategy,” Levin said.

He noted that younger people are the least likely to be screened.

“They are busy with work and family responsibilities and may not realize that they are at risk for CRC. It is important to offer them a test that is easy to perform and does not require them to miss a day of work or arrange for a driver. They should be offered an option to screen with a stool-based test as an easy way to fit CRC screening into their busy lives,” Levin said.

Gellad said the study also highlights the limitations of FIT, “namely, that the low uptake and suboptimal colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, also extend into the lower age group.”

Additionally, Gellad said he hopes other large systems will replicate this study to address the generalizability of these findings outside the Kaiser system.

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Sydney R. Garfield Memorial Fund. Disclosures for study authors are available with the original article. Gellad consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a co-founder of Higgs Boson, Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults aged 45-49 years are as likely as are those aged 50 years to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an initial screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up with a colonoscopy if needed, a new study has found.

The study also found a similar low 3% rate of CRC detected at colonoscopy in both the younger and older adults.

“Our study suggests that adults ages 45-49 have a colorectal cancer risk that is similar to what we see in adults age 50,” senior author Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research (DOR) in Oakland, California, said in a news release.

“The low number of cancers we found also provides support for initially offering younger adults a non-invasive test, like FIT, to determine which patients would benefit from a colonoscopy,” Lee noted.

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center

Timely and Important Question

“This study addresses a timely and important clinical question, namely, is FIT an acceptable screening modality in patients aged 45-49,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“The finding that FIT completion and yield in younger patients is similar to those aged 50 and above is good news because it supports the use of this screening modality in the younger cohort,” said Gellad, section chief, gastroenterology, Durham VA Health Care System.

Duke University

FIT First Fits With Younger Adults’ Busy Lives

“Overall, people under 50 have lower incidence of cancer than people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. However, if you do a test like FIT first, you can improve the yield of colonoscopy, which is a much more efficient strategy,” Levin said.

He noted that younger people are the least likely to be screened.

“They are busy with work and family responsibilities and may not realize that they are at risk for CRC. It is important to offer them a test that is easy to perform and does not require them to miss a day of work or arrange for a driver. They should be offered an option to screen with a stool-based test as an easy way to fit CRC screening into their busy lives,” Levin said.

Gellad said the study also highlights the limitations of FIT, “namely, that the low uptake and suboptimal colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, also extend into the lower age group.”

Additionally, Gellad said he hopes other large systems will replicate this study to address the generalizability of these findings outside the Kaiser system.

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Sydney R. Garfield Memorial Fund. Disclosures for study authors are available with the original article. Gellad consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a co-founder of Higgs Boson, Inc.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic polyps depends on the region of the colon examined, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In particular, the diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps showed significantly lower specificity in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“While current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for diagnosing polyps in the proximal colon until new, higher performing systems are developed specifically for these lesions,” said study lead Tommy Rizkala, MD, Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy.

The “main strength” of the review is that the researchers contacted each study author for more specific information and were therefore able to divide the data into the proximal colon and the rectosigmoid colon, he explained.

“This is the first paper that has really collected these data. Most papers provide data for the entire colon or just for the rectosigmoid colon,” said Rizkala, who presented the findings at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

The study was also recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Optical diagnosis enables real-time histologic predictions of polyps 5 mm or smaller during colonoscopy, offering potential clinical and cost-saving benefits. Two optical diagnostic strategies are used for polyps in this size range based on location: A leave-in-situ strategy (applied only in the rectosigmoid colon when there is high confidence of non-neoplastic polyps) and a resect-and-discard strategy (applied only in the whole colon when there is high confidence of neoplastic polyps upon optical diagnosis).

Rizkala carried out a review of studies that evaluated the performance of real-time CADx alone — independent of endoscopist judgment — for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps 5 mm or smaller. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal colon (the portion extending from the descending colon to the cecum) and the distal colon (limited to the rectosigmoid region). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the CADx alone in the proximal colon and the distal colon.
 

Lower Specificity in the Proximal Colon

An analysis of data based on 7782 polyps ≤ 5 mm from 11 studies found specificity values of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52-0.71) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions of the colon, respectively, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84), meaning that CADx accuracy was significantly lower in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“According to the optical diagnosis strategy, we can use the leave-in-situ approach for the distal colon because the performance is adequate, but for the rest of the colon, CADx requires further enhancement,” Rizkala said.

Sensitivity values were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions, respectively, with an RR of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.03).

Regarding the secondary outcomes, the NPV was 0.64 vs 0.93 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), and accuracy was 0.81 vs 0.86, with an RR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99).

With the higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, a lower NPV was observed in the proximal colon, Rizkala noted.

The PPV was 0.87 vs 0.76 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.17), so the two parts of the colon were comparable, he reported.

In the future, CADx systems should focus on using lesions from the proximal colon to train more accurately because currently CADx systems are trained on the available endoscopic data in which most of those polyps are from the rectosigmoid colon, Rizkala said.

We would also “like manufacturers of CADx systems to provide public access to data balanced between the proximal and distal regions of the colon,” he added.
 

Diagnosis More Challenging Than Detection With CADx

Commenting on the study, comoderator David G. Graham, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at University College London Hospital in England, remarked: “The key questions here relate to why are these systems underperforming in the proximal colon, and how can we improve this?”

Are these results “due to the very different appearance of adenomas in the distal colon vs the proximal colon on CADx (which is not what we see as endoscopists but seems to be what the systems are seeing), or is it due to a different characterization of polyps,” that is, more sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, he asked.

Also commenting on the study was Raf Bisschops, MD, head of endoscopy at KU Leuven in Belgium. He remarked that the review underscores the fact that optical diagnosis by artificial intelligence is a more challenging task than detection.

It is “not entirely clear” what would explain the difference in performance of CADx between the distal colon and proximal colon, he said. It can’t be excluded that the inclusion of different CADx systems, some of which clearly underperformed, may account for the difference.

He went on to suggest that the differences might be down to location beyond proximal and distal.

“The difference in performance between the right and left colon is also interesting, since recent insights in the molecular and morphological features of hyperplastic polyps indicates that there are different classes with more goblet cell–rich hyperplastic polyps in the right colon, and more microvesicular hyperplastic polyps in the left.”

These have “distinct microscopic and endoscopic appearances” that could account for a difference in performance of a CADx system if not included in the training and validation sets, he explained.

Rizkala and Graham reported no relevant disclosures. Bisschops reported receiving research grants and speaker fees from Medtronic, Fujifilm, and Pentax.

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

VIENNA — The effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic polyps depends on the region of the colon examined, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In particular, the diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps showed significantly lower specificity in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“While current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for diagnosing polyps in the proximal colon until new, higher performing systems are developed specifically for these lesions,” said study lead Tommy Rizkala, MD, Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy.

The “main strength” of the review is that the researchers contacted each study author for more specific information and were therefore able to divide the data into the proximal colon and the rectosigmoid colon, he explained.

“This is the first paper that has really collected these data. Most papers provide data for the entire colon or just for the rectosigmoid colon,” said Rizkala, who presented the findings at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

The study was also recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Optical diagnosis enables real-time histologic predictions of polyps 5 mm or smaller during colonoscopy, offering potential clinical and cost-saving benefits. Two optical diagnostic strategies are used for polyps in this size range based on location: A leave-in-situ strategy (applied only in the rectosigmoid colon when there is high confidence of non-neoplastic polyps) and a resect-and-discard strategy (applied only in the whole colon when there is high confidence of neoplastic polyps upon optical diagnosis).

Rizkala carried out a review of studies that evaluated the performance of real-time CADx alone — independent of endoscopist judgment — for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps 5 mm or smaller. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal colon (the portion extending from the descending colon to the cecum) and the distal colon (limited to the rectosigmoid region). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the CADx alone in the proximal colon and the distal colon.
 

Lower Specificity in the Proximal Colon

An analysis of data based on 7782 polyps ≤ 5 mm from 11 studies found specificity values of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52-0.71) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions of the colon, respectively, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84), meaning that CADx accuracy was significantly lower in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“According to the optical diagnosis strategy, we can use the leave-in-situ approach for the distal colon because the performance is adequate, but for the rest of the colon, CADx requires further enhancement,” Rizkala said.

Sensitivity values were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions, respectively, with an RR of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.03).

Regarding the secondary outcomes, the NPV was 0.64 vs 0.93 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), and accuracy was 0.81 vs 0.86, with an RR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99).

With the higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, a lower NPV was observed in the proximal colon, Rizkala noted.

The PPV was 0.87 vs 0.76 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.17), so the two parts of the colon were comparable, he reported.

In the future, CADx systems should focus on using lesions from the proximal colon to train more accurately because currently CADx systems are trained on the available endoscopic data in which most of those polyps are from the rectosigmoid colon, Rizkala said.

We would also “like manufacturers of CADx systems to provide public access to data balanced between the proximal and distal regions of the colon,” he added.
 

Diagnosis More Challenging Than Detection With CADx

Commenting on the study, comoderator David G. Graham, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at University College London Hospital in England, remarked: “The key questions here relate to why are these systems underperforming in the proximal colon, and how can we improve this?”

Are these results “due to the very different appearance of adenomas in the distal colon vs the proximal colon on CADx (which is not what we see as endoscopists but seems to be what the systems are seeing), or is it due to a different characterization of polyps,” that is, more sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, he asked.

Also commenting on the study was Raf Bisschops, MD, head of endoscopy at KU Leuven in Belgium. He remarked that the review underscores the fact that optical diagnosis by artificial intelligence is a more challenging task than detection.

It is “not entirely clear” what would explain the difference in performance of CADx between the distal colon and proximal colon, he said. It can’t be excluded that the inclusion of different CADx systems, some of which clearly underperformed, may account for the difference.

He went on to suggest that the differences might be down to location beyond proximal and distal.

“The difference in performance between the right and left colon is also interesting, since recent insights in the molecular and morphological features of hyperplastic polyps indicates that there are different classes with more goblet cell–rich hyperplastic polyps in the right colon, and more microvesicular hyperplastic polyps in the left.”

These have “distinct microscopic and endoscopic appearances” that could account for a difference in performance of a CADx system if not included in the training and validation sets, he explained.

Rizkala and Graham reported no relevant disclosures. Bisschops reported receiving research grants and speaker fees from Medtronic, Fujifilm, and Pentax.

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

VIENNA — The effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic polyps depends on the region of the colon examined, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In particular, the diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps showed significantly lower specificity in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“While current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for diagnosing polyps in the proximal colon until new, higher performing systems are developed specifically for these lesions,” said study lead Tommy Rizkala, MD, Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy.

The “main strength” of the review is that the researchers contacted each study author for more specific information and were therefore able to divide the data into the proximal colon and the rectosigmoid colon, he explained.

“This is the first paper that has really collected these data. Most papers provide data for the entire colon or just for the rectosigmoid colon,” said Rizkala, who presented the findings at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

The study was also recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Optical diagnosis enables real-time histologic predictions of polyps 5 mm or smaller during colonoscopy, offering potential clinical and cost-saving benefits. Two optical diagnostic strategies are used for polyps in this size range based on location: A leave-in-situ strategy (applied only in the rectosigmoid colon when there is high confidence of non-neoplastic polyps) and a resect-and-discard strategy (applied only in the whole colon when there is high confidence of neoplastic polyps upon optical diagnosis).

Rizkala carried out a review of studies that evaluated the performance of real-time CADx alone — independent of endoscopist judgment — for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps 5 mm or smaller. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal colon (the portion extending from the descending colon to the cecum) and the distal colon (limited to the rectosigmoid region). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the CADx alone in the proximal colon and the distal colon.
 

Lower Specificity in the Proximal Colon

An analysis of data based on 7782 polyps ≤ 5 mm from 11 studies found specificity values of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52-0.71) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions of the colon, respectively, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84), meaning that CADx accuracy was significantly lower in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“According to the optical diagnosis strategy, we can use the leave-in-situ approach for the distal colon because the performance is adequate, but for the rest of the colon, CADx requires further enhancement,” Rizkala said.

Sensitivity values were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions, respectively, with an RR of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.03).

Regarding the secondary outcomes, the NPV was 0.64 vs 0.93 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), and accuracy was 0.81 vs 0.86, with an RR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99).

With the higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, a lower NPV was observed in the proximal colon, Rizkala noted.

The PPV was 0.87 vs 0.76 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.17), so the two parts of the colon were comparable, he reported.

In the future, CADx systems should focus on using lesions from the proximal colon to train more accurately because currently CADx systems are trained on the available endoscopic data in which most of those polyps are from the rectosigmoid colon, Rizkala said.

We would also “like manufacturers of CADx systems to provide public access to data balanced between the proximal and distal regions of the colon,” he added.
 

Diagnosis More Challenging Than Detection With CADx

Commenting on the study, comoderator David G. Graham, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at University College London Hospital in England, remarked: “The key questions here relate to why are these systems underperforming in the proximal colon, and how can we improve this?”

Are these results “due to the very different appearance of adenomas in the distal colon vs the proximal colon on CADx (which is not what we see as endoscopists but seems to be what the systems are seeing), or is it due to a different characterization of polyps,” that is, more sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, he asked.

Also commenting on the study was Raf Bisschops, MD, head of endoscopy at KU Leuven in Belgium. He remarked that the review underscores the fact that optical diagnosis by artificial intelligence is a more challenging task than detection.

It is “not entirely clear” what would explain the difference in performance of CADx between the distal colon and proximal colon, he said. It can’t be excluded that the inclusion of different CADx systems, some of which clearly underperformed, may account for the difference.

He went on to suggest that the differences might be down to location beyond proximal and distal.

“The difference in performance between the right and left colon is also interesting, since recent insights in the molecular and morphological features of hyperplastic polyps indicates that there are different classes with more goblet cell–rich hyperplastic polyps in the right colon, and more microvesicular hyperplastic polyps in the left.”

These have “distinct microscopic and endoscopic appearances” that could account for a difference in performance of a CADx system if not included in the training and validation sets, he explained.

Rizkala and Graham reported no relevant disclosures. Bisschops reported receiving research grants and speaker fees from Medtronic, Fujifilm, and Pentax.

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

PHILADELPHIA — The mortality rate of early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) has increased considerably across the United States over the past 2 decades, with the effects most pronounced in those aged 20-44 years, according to a new analysis of the two largest US mortality databases. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases provide yet more evidence of the increasing prevalence of EO-CRC, which is defined as a diagnosis of CRC in patients younger than age 50 years. 

Furthermore, the researchers reported that increased mortality occurred across all patients included in the study (aged 20-54) regardless of tumor stage at diagnosis.

These findings “prompt tailoring further efforts toward raising awareness of colorectal cancer symptoms and keeping a low clinical suspicion in younger patients presenting with anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, or change in bowel habits,” Yazan Abboud, MD, internal medicine PGY-3, assistant chief resident, and chair of resident research at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in an interview.

Abboud presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Analyzing NCHS and SEER 

Rising rates of EO-CRC had prompted US medical societies to recommend reducing the screening age to 45 years. The US Preventive Services Task Force officially lowered it to this age in 2021. This shift is supported by real-world evidence, which shows that earlier screening leads to a significantly reduced risk for colorectal cancer. However, because colorectal cancer cases are decreasing overall in older adults, there is considerable interest in discovering why young adults are experiencing a paradoxical uptick in EO-CRC, and what impact this is having on associated mortality.

Abboud and colleagues collected age-adjusted mortality rates for EO-CRC between 2000 and 2022 from the NCHS database. In addition, stage-specific incidence-based mortality rates between 2004-2020 were obtained from the SEER 22 database. The NCHS database covers approximately 100% of the US population, whereas the SEER 22 database, which is included within the NCHS, covers 42%. 

The researchers divided patients into two cohorts based on age (20-44 years and 45-54 years) and tumor stage at diagnosis (early stage and late stage), and compared the annual percentage change (APC) and the average APC between the two groups. They also assessed trends for the entire cohort of patients aged 20-54 years. 

In the NCHS database, there were 147,026 deaths in total across all ages studied resulting from EO-CRC, of which 27% (39,746) occurred in those 20-44 years of age. Although associated mortality rates decreased between 2000-2005 in all ages studied (APC, –1.56), they increased from 2005-2022 (APC, 0.87). 

In the cohort aged 45-54 years, mortality decreased between 2000-2005 and increased thereafter, whereas in the cohort aged 20-44 years mortality increased steadily for the entire follow-up duration of 2000 to 2022 (APC, 0.93). A comparison of the age cohorts confirmed that those aged 20-44 years had a greater increase in mortality (average APC, 0.85; P < .001).

In the SEER 22 database, there were 4652 deaths in those with early-stage tumors across all age groups studied (average APC, 12.17). Mortality increased in patients aged 45-54 years (average APC, 11.52) with early-stage tumors, but there were insufficient numbers in those aged 20-44 years to determine this outcome. 

There were 42,120 deaths in those with late-stage tumors across all age groups (average APC, 10.05) in the SEER 22 database. And increased mortality was observed in those with late-stage tumors in both age cohorts: 45-54 years (average APC, 9.58) and 20-44 years (average APC, 11.06).

“When evaluating the SEER database and stratifying the tumors by stage at diagnosis, we demonstrated increasing mortality of early-onset colorectal cancer in both early- and late-stage tumors on average over the study period,” Abboud said. 
 

Identifying At-Risk Patients

In a comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine in Norfolk, said the findings speak to the need for evidence-based means of identifying younger individuals at a higher risk of EO-CRC.

“I suspect many of younger patients with CRC had their cancer detected when it was more advanced due to delayed presentation and diagnostic testing,” said Johnson, who was not involved in the study. 

But it would be interesting to evaluate if the cancers in the cohort aged 20-44 years were more aggressive biologically or if these patients were dismissive of early signs or symptoms, he said. 

Younger patients may dismiss “alarm” features that indicate CRC testing, said Johnson. “In particular, overt bleeding and iron deficiency need a focused evaluation in these younger cohorts.”

“Future research is needed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in younger patients with early-stage colorectal cancer and evaluate patients’ outcomes,” Abboud added. 

The study had no specific funding. Abboud reported no relevant financial relationships. Johnson reported serving as an adviser to ISOTHRIVE. He is also on the Medscape Gastroenterology editorial board.

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

PHILADELPHIA — The mortality rate of early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) has increased considerably across the United States over the past 2 decades, with the effects most pronounced in those aged 20-44 years, according to a new analysis of the two largest US mortality databases. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases provide yet more evidence of the increasing prevalence of EO-CRC, which is defined as a diagnosis of CRC in patients younger than age 50 years. 

Furthermore, the researchers reported that increased mortality occurred across all patients included in the study (aged 20-54) regardless of tumor stage at diagnosis.

These findings “prompt tailoring further efforts toward raising awareness of colorectal cancer symptoms and keeping a low clinical suspicion in younger patients presenting with anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, or change in bowel habits,” Yazan Abboud, MD, internal medicine PGY-3, assistant chief resident, and chair of resident research at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in an interview.

Abboud presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Analyzing NCHS and SEER 

Rising rates of EO-CRC had prompted US medical societies to recommend reducing the screening age to 45 years. The US Preventive Services Task Force officially lowered it to this age in 2021. This shift is supported by real-world evidence, which shows that earlier screening leads to a significantly reduced risk for colorectal cancer. However, because colorectal cancer cases are decreasing overall in older adults, there is considerable interest in discovering why young adults are experiencing a paradoxical uptick in EO-CRC, and what impact this is having on associated mortality.

Abboud and colleagues collected age-adjusted mortality rates for EO-CRC between 2000 and 2022 from the NCHS database. In addition, stage-specific incidence-based mortality rates between 2004-2020 were obtained from the SEER 22 database. The NCHS database covers approximately 100% of the US population, whereas the SEER 22 database, which is included within the NCHS, covers 42%. 

The researchers divided patients into two cohorts based on age (20-44 years and 45-54 years) and tumor stage at diagnosis (early stage and late stage), and compared the annual percentage change (APC) and the average APC between the two groups. They also assessed trends for the entire cohort of patients aged 20-54 years. 

In the NCHS database, there were 147,026 deaths in total across all ages studied resulting from EO-CRC, of which 27% (39,746) occurred in those 20-44 years of age. Although associated mortality rates decreased between 2000-2005 in all ages studied (APC, –1.56), they increased from 2005-2022 (APC, 0.87). 

In the cohort aged 45-54 years, mortality decreased between 2000-2005 and increased thereafter, whereas in the cohort aged 20-44 years mortality increased steadily for the entire follow-up duration of 2000 to 2022 (APC, 0.93). A comparison of the age cohorts confirmed that those aged 20-44 years had a greater increase in mortality (average APC, 0.85; P < .001).

In the SEER 22 database, there were 4652 deaths in those with early-stage tumors across all age groups studied (average APC, 12.17). Mortality increased in patients aged 45-54 years (average APC, 11.52) with early-stage tumors, but there were insufficient numbers in those aged 20-44 years to determine this outcome. 

There were 42,120 deaths in those with late-stage tumors across all age groups (average APC, 10.05) in the SEER 22 database. And increased mortality was observed in those with late-stage tumors in both age cohorts: 45-54 years (average APC, 9.58) and 20-44 years (average APC, 11.06).

“When evaluating the SEER database and stratifying the tumors by stage at diagnosis, we demonstrated increasing mortality of early-onset colorectal cancer in both early- and late-stage tumors on average over the study period,” Abboud said. 
 

Identifying At-Risk Patients

In a comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine in Norfolk, said the findings speak to the need for evidence-based means of identifying younger individuals at a higher risk of EO-CRC.

“I suspect many of younger patients with CRC had their cancer detected when it was more advanced due to delayed presentation and diagnostic testing,” said Johnson, who was not involved in the study. 

But it would be interesting to evaluate if the cancers in the cohort aged 20-44 years were more aggressive biologically or if these patients were dismissive of early signs or symptoms, he said. 

Younger patients may dismiss “alarm” features that indicate CRC testing, said Johnson. “In particular, overt bleeding and iron deficiency need a focused evaluation in these younger cohorts.”

“Future research is needed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in younger patients with early-stage colorectal cancer and evaluate patients’ outcomes,” Abboud added. 

The study had no specific funding. Abboud reported no relevant financial relationships. Johnson reported serving as an adviser to ISOTHRIVE. He is also on the Medscape Gastroenterology editorial board.

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

PHILADELPHIA — The mortality rate of early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) has increased considerably across the United States over the past 2 decades, with the effects most pronounced in those aged 20-44 years, according to a new analysis of the two largest US mortality databases. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases provide yet more evidence of the increasing prevalence of EO-CRC, which is defined as a diagnosis of CRC in patients younger than age 50 years. 

Furthermore, the researchers reported that increased mortality occurred across all patients included in the study (aged 20-54) regardless of tumor stage at diagnosis.

These findings “prompt tailoring further efforts toward raising awareness of colorectal cancer symptoms and keeping a low clinical suspicion in younger patients presenting with anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, or change in bowel habits,” Yazan Abboud, MD, internal medicine PGY-3, assistant chief resident, and chair of resident research at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in an interview.

Abboud presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Analyzing NCHS and SEER 

Rising rates of EO-CRC had prompted US medical societies to recommend reducing the screening age to 45 years. The US Preventive Services Task Force officially lowered it to this age in 2021. This shift is supported by real-world evidence, which shows that earlier screening leads to a significantly reduced risk for colorectal cancer. However, because colorectal cancer cases are decreasing overall in older adults, there is considerable interest in discovering why young adults are experiencing a paradoxical uptick in EO-CRC, and what impact this is having on associated mortality.

Abboud and colleagues collected age-adjusted mortality rates for EO-CRC between 2000 and 2022 from the NCHS database. In addition, stage-specific incidence-based mortality rates between 2004-2020 were obtained from the SEER 22 database. The NCHS database covers approximately 100% of the US population, whereas the SEER 22 database, which is included within the NCHS, covers 42%. 

The researchers divided patients into two cohorts based on age (20-44 years and 45-54 years) and tumor stage at diagnosis (early stage and late stage), and compared the annual percentage change (APC) and the average APC between the two groups. They also assessed trends for the entire cohort of patients aged 20-54 years. 

In the NCHS database, there were 147,026 deaths in total across all ages studied resulting from EO-CRC, of which 27% (39,746) occurred in those 20-44 years of age. Although associated mortality rates decreased between 2000-2005 in all ages studied (APC, –1.56), they increased from 2005-2022 (APC, 0.87). 

In the cohort aged 45-54 years, mortality decreased between 2000-2005 and increased thereafter, whereas in the cohort aged 20-44 years mortality increased steadily for the entire follow-up duration of 2000 to 2022 (APC, 0.93). A comparison of the age cohorts confirmed that those aged 20-44 years had a greater increase in mortality (average APC, 0.85; P < .001).

In the SEER 22 database, there were 4652 deaths in those with early-stage tumors across all age groups studied (average APC, 12.17). Mortality increased in patients aged 45-54 years (average APC, 11.52) with early-stage tumors, but there were insufficient numbers in those aged 20-44 years to determine this outcome. 

There were 42,120 deaths in those with late-stage tumors across all age groups (average APC, 10.05) in the SEER 22 database. And increased mortality was observed in those with late-stage tumors in both age cohorts: 45-54 years (average APC, 9.58) and 20-44 years (average APC, 11.06).

“When evaluating the SEER database and stratifying the tumors by stage at diagnosis, we demonstrated increasing mortality of early-onset colorectal cancer in both early- and late-stage tumors on average over the study period,” Abboud said. 
 

Identifying At-Risk Patients

In a comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine in Norfolk, said the findings speak to the need for evidence-based means of identifying younger individuals at a higher risk of EO-CRC.

“I suspect many of younger patients with CRC had their cancer detected when it was more advanced due to delayed presentation and diagnostic testing,” said Johnson, who was not involved in the study. 

But it would be interesting to evaluate if the cancers in the cohort aged 20-44 years were more aggressive biologically or if these patients were dismissive of early signs or symptoms, he said. 

Younger patients may dismiss “alarm” features that indicate CRC testing, said Johnson. “In particular, overt bleeding and iron deficiency need a focused evaluation in these younger cohorts.”

“Future research is needed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in younger patients with early-stage colorectal cancer and evaluate patients’ outcomes,” Abboud added. 

The study had no specific funding. Abboud reported no relevant financial relationships. Johnson reported serving as an adviser to ISOTHRIVE. He is also on the Medscape Gastroenterology editorial board.

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

Noninvasive surveillance with multitarget stool DNA testing or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) could potentially match colonoscopy for reducing long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. It might also reduce colonoscopies by an estimated 15%-41%.

The greatest reduction would likely be achieved by annual FIT-based surveillance, especially with FIT FOB-Gold at a threshold of at least 32 µg/g feces, according to findings from the Dutch MOCCAS study published in Gastroenterology.

In this cross-sectional observational study, the multitarget DNA test outperformed FIT for detecting advanced precursor lesions, especially serrated polyps. According to long-term-impact mathematical modeling, however, DNA-based surveillance would be more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT would save costs.

“With the worldwide implementation of FIT-based screening programs, following a positive test, many more people enter surveillance programs after polypectomy. This results in an increased pressure on the colonoscopy capacity and healthcare budgets,” lead author Beatriz Carvalho, PhD, a molecular biologist in the Department of Pathology of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, said in an interview.

Netherlands Cancer Institute

Stanford University

Study Details

The cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years who provided stool samples for the DNA test and two FITs. Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications.

For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and associated with a relatively low CRC risk, the long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test’s positivity threshold to obtain strategies that are at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance.

A total of 3453 individuals had results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; among them, 2226 had previously undergone polypectomy, 1003 had a history of CRC, and 224 had a familial risk.

Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were as follows:

• 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test
• 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR 
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold 

Stool-based surveillance was estimated to be at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance and required 5.6 to 9.5 stool tests over a person’s lifetime. DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs.

“These findings provide a basis to embark on a prospective intervention study to assess the clinical utility of FIT as an alternative to colonoscopy surveillance in a post-polypectomy CRC surveillance population,” the authors wrote.

In the United States, Ladabaum said, it would likely be possible to find FIT-based strategies that closely approximate or match surveillance colonoscopy — “if we could deploy FIT with the required flexibility, for example, by adjusting the threshold and if the reference surveillance standard were somewhat relaxed compared with current guidelines.”

He worries, however, that if FIT for screening and FIT for surveillance were optimized at different hemoglobin detection thresholds, “there could be confusion and room for error in real-world clinical implementation.”

The authors called for research to increase understanding of the mechanisms underlying progression from adenomas to malignancy over time, which may yield better biomarkers to improve stool test accuracy.

This study was funded by the Alpe d’HuZes charity and the Dutch Cancer Society. Exact Sciences provided test equipment and performed multitarget stool DNA test analysis. Sentinel Diagnostics provided equipment and reagents.

Carvalho and Veerle M. H. Coupé, PhD, disclosed several patents pending and/or issued. Other coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships with private companies, including Exact Sciences and Sentinel, for research support, travel, board membership, advisory or speaker fees, consulting, employment, stock ownership, or patents.

Ladabaum disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Noninvasive surveillance with multitarget stool DNA testing or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) could potentially match colonoscopy for reducing long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. It might also reduce colonoscopies by an estimated 15%-41%.

The greatest reduction would likely be achieved by annual FIT-based surveillance, especially with FIT FOB-Gold at a threshold of at least 32 µg/g feces, according to findings from the Dutch MOCCAS study published in Gastroenterology.

In this cross-sectional observational study, the multitarget DNA test outperformed FIT for detecting advanced precursor lesions, especially serrated polyps. According to long-term-impact mathematical modeling, however, DNA-based surveillance would be more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT would save costs.

“With the worldwide implementation of FIT-based screening programs, following a positive test, many more people enter surveillance programs after polypectomy. This results in an increased pressure on the colonoscopy capacity and healthcare budgets,” lead author Beatriz Carvalho, PhD, a molecular biologist in the Department of Pathology of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, said in an interview.

Netherlands Cancer Institute

Stanford University

Study Details

The cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years who provided stool samples for the DNA test and two FITs. Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications.

For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and associated with a relatively low CRC risk, the long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test’s positivity threshold to obtain strategies that are at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance.

A total of 3453 individuals had results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; among them, 2226 had previously undergone polypectomy, 1003 had a history of CRC, and 224 had a familial risk.

Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were as follows:

• 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test
• 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR 
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold 

Stool-based surveillance was estimated to be at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance and required 5.6 to 9.5 stool tests over a person’s lifetime. DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs.

“These findings provide a basis to embark on a prospective intervention study to assess the clinical utility of FIT as an alternative to colonoscopy surveillance in a post-polypectomy CRC surveillance population,” the authors wrote.

In the United States, Ladabaum said, it would likely be possible to find FIT-based strategies that closely approximate or match surveillance colonoscopy — “if we could deploy FIT with the required flexibility, for example, by adjusting the threshold and if the reference surveillance standard were somewhat relaxed compared with current guidelines.”

He worries, however, that if FIT for screening and FIT for surveillance were optimized at different hemoglobin detection thresholds, “there could be confusion and room for error in real-world clinical implementation.”

The authors called for research to increase understanding of the mechanisms underlying progression from adenomas to malignancy over time, which may yield better biomarkers to improve stool test accuracy.

This study was funded by the Alpe d’HuZes charity and the Dutch Cancer Society. Exact Sciences provided test equipment and performed multitarget stool DNA test analysis. Sentinel Diagnostics provided equipment and reagents.

Carvalho and Veerle M. H. Coupé, PhD, disclosed several patents pending and/or issued. Other coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships with private companies, including Exact Sciences and Sentinel, for research support, travel, board membership, advisory or speaker fees, consulting, employment, stock ownership, or patents.

Ladabaum disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Noninvasive surveillance with multitarget stool DNA testing or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) could potentially match colonoscopy for reducing long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. It might also reduce colonoscopies by an estimated 15%-41%.

The greatest reduction would likely be achieved by annual FIT-based surveillance, especially with FIT FOB-Gold at a threshold of at least 32 µg/g feces, according to findings from the Dutch MOCCAS study published in Gastroenterology.

In this cross-sectional observational study, the multitarget DNA test outperformed FIT for detecting advanced precursor lesions, especially serrated polyps. According to long-term-impact mathematical modeling, however, DNA-based surveillance would be more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT would save costs.

“With the worldwide implementation of FIT-based screening programs, following a positive test, many more people enter surveillance programs after polypectomy. This results in an increased pressure on the colonoscopy capacity and healthcare budgets,” lead author Beatriz Carvalho, PhD, a molecular biologist in the Department of Pathology of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, said in an interview.

Netherlands Cancer Institute

Stanford University

Study Details

The cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years who provided stool samples for the DNA test and two FITs. Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications.

For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and associated with a relatively low CRC risk, the long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test’s positivity threshold to obtain strategies that are at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance.

A total of 3453 individuals had results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; among them, 2226 had previously undergone polypectomy, 1003 had a history of CRC, and 224 had a familial risk.

Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were as follows:

• 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test
• 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR 
• 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold 

Stool-based surveillance was estimated to be at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance and required 5.6 to 9.5 stool tests over a person’s lifetime. DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs.

“These findings provide a basis to embark on a prospective intervention study to assess the clinical utility of FIT as an alternative to colonoscopy surveillance in a post-polypectomy CRC surveillance population,” the authors wrote.

In the United States, Ladabaum said, it would likely be possible to find FIT-based strategies that closely approximate or match surveillance colonoscopy — “if we could deploy FIT with the required flexibility, for example, by adjusting the threshold and if the reference surveillance standard were somewhat relaxed compared with current guidelines.”

He worries, however, that if FIT for screening and FIT for surveillance were optimized at different hemoglobin detection thresholds, “there could be confusion and room for error in real-world clinical implementation.”

The authors called for research to increase understanding of the mechanisms underlying progression from adenomas to malignancy over time, which may yield better biomarkers to improve stool test accuracy.

This study was funded by the Alpe d’HuZes charity and the Dutch Cancer Society. Exact Sciences provided test equipment and performed multitarget stool DNA test analysis. Sentinel Diagnostics provided equipment and reagents.

Carvalho and Veerle M. H. Coupé, PhD, disclosed several patents pending and/or issued. Other coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships with private companies, including Exact Sciences and Sentinel, for research support, travel, board membership, advisory or speaker fees, consulting, employment, stock ownership, or patents.

Ladabaum disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Delayed reporting of cancer diagnosis by registries probably led to the weaker-than-expected effects of screening colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) observed in the NordICC trial, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The NordICC trial randomly assigned 85,179 adults aged 55-64 years in a 1:2 ratio to receive or not receive an invitation for a single screening colonoscopy and determined the risk for CRC diagnosis and death over 10-15 years of follow-up using cancer registries. After randomization, the trial excluded 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization.
• The trial found that CRC risk and associated mortality were lower in adults who had colonoscopy, though only modestly so, which generated considerable controversy.
• Because registration delays are a known concern with population-based cancer registries but the trial did not account for them, researchers on the current study postulated that delays might have led to an underestimation of the impact of colonoscopy on CRC risk.
• They estimated the magnitude of delayed reporting of CRC diagnosis to cancer registries by comparing the 221 exclusions with expected CRC diagnoses per year. They explored the impact that delays may have had on the results of the trial’s intention-to-screen analysis and adjusted per-protocol analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The trial’s post hoc exclusion of 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization suggests delays of 2-3 years in registration.
• With no assumed delay in cancer registration, the 10-year reported CRC risk difference was 0.22% in intention-to-screen and 0.38% in adjusted per-protocol analyses. With a mean delay in cancer registration of 2 years, the risk difference rose to 0.44% in the intention-to-screen analysis and 0.76% in the adjusted per-protocol analysis.
• Assuming no delay in cancer registration, the number needed to invite for screening colonoscopy and number needed to undergo the procedure to prevent 1 CRC diagnosis/death were 455 and 263, respectively. These numbers decreased to 227 and 132, respectively, with a 2-year reporting delay.
• Registration delays of 1, 2, or 3 years led to an underestimated risk for CRC by 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Updated analyses ensuring complete 10- and 15-year follow-up will be crucial to derive the true reductions of CRC risk and mortality in the trial’s predefined interim and primary analysis. In the meantime, available estimates are to be interpreted with caution, as they likely severely underestimate true screening colonoscopy effects,” the authors concluded.

The lag in reporting found by the study raises questions about the time interval needed beyond the end of a study to assure its completeness, which varies across registries, wrote Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and colleagues in an invited commentary. “Publication guidelines should be strengthened to ensure affirmation of completeness and quality of cancer registries used for outcomes ascertainment to minimize uncertainties.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, was published online in JAMA Network Open, as was the invited commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

Exact quantification of and correction for registration delays were not possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and German Cancer Aid. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Delayed reporting of cancer diagnosis by registries probably led to the weaker-than-expected effects of screening colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) observed in the NordICC trial, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The NordICC trial randomly assigned 85,179 adults aged 55-64 years in a 1:2 ratio to receive or not receive an invitation for a single screening colonoscopy and determined the risk for CRC diagnosis and death over 10-15 years of follow-up using cancer registries. After randomization, the trial excluded 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization.
• The trial found that CRC risk and associated mortality were lower in adults who had colonoscopy, though only modestly so, which generated considerable controversy.
• Because registration delays are a known concern with population-based cancer registries but the trial did not account for them, researchers on the current study postulated that delays might have led to an underestimation of the impact of colonoscopy on CRC risk.
• They estimated the magnitude of delayed reporting of CRC diagnosis to cancer registries by comparing the 221 exclusions with expected CRC diagnoses per year. They explored the impact that delays may have had on the results of the trial’s intention-to-screen analysis and adjusted per-protocol analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The trial’s post hoc exclusion of 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization suggests delays of 2-3 years in registration.
• With no assumed delay in cancer registration, the 10-year reported CRC risk difference was 0.22% in intention-to-screen and 0.38% in adjusted per-protocol analyses. With a mean delay in cancer registration of 2 years, the risk difference rose to 0.44% in the intention-to-screen analysis and 0.76% in the adjusted per-protocol analysis.
• Assuming no delay in cancer registration, the number needed to invite for screening colonoscopy and number needed to undergo the procedure to prevent 1 CRC diagnosis/death were 455 and 263, respectively. These numbers decreased to 227 and 132, respectively, with a 2-year reporting delay.
• Registration delays of 1, 2, or 3 years led to an underestimated risk for CRC by 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Updated analyses ensuring complete 10- and 15-year follow-up will be crucial to derive the true reductions of CRC risk and mortality in the trial’s predefined interim and primary analysis. In the meantime, available estimates are to be interpreted with caution, as they likely severely underestimate true screening colonoscopy effects,” the authors concluded.

The lag in reporting found by the study raises questions about the time interval needed beyond the end of a study to assure its completeness, which varies across registries, wrote Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and colleagues in an invited commentary. “Publication guidelines should be strengthened to ensure affirmation of completeness and quality of cancer registries used for outcomes ascertainment to minimize uncertainties.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, was published online in JAMA Network Open, as was the invited commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

Exact quantification of and correction for registration delays were not possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and German Cancer Aid. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Delayed reporting of cancer diagnosis by registries probably led to the weaker-than-expected effects of screening colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) observed in the NordICC trial, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The NordICC trial randomly assigned 85,179 adults aged 55-64 years in a 1:2 ratio to receive or not receive an invitation for a single screening colonoscopy and determined the risk for CRC diagnosis and death over 10-15 years of follow-up using cancer registries. After randomization, the trial excluded 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization.
• The trial found that CRC risk and associated mortality were lower in adults who had colonoscopy, though only modestly so, which generated considerable controversy.
• Because registration delays are a known concern with population-based cancer registries but the trial did not account for them, researchers on the current study postulated that delays might have led to an underestimation of the impact of colonoscopy on CRC risk.
• They estimated the magnitude of delayed reporting of CRC diagnosis to cancer registries by comparing the 221 exclusions with expected CRC diagnoses per year. They explored the impact that delays may have had on the results of the trial’s intention-to-screen analysis and adjusted per-protocol analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The trial’s post hoc exclusion of 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization suggests delays of 2-3 years in registration.
• With no assumed delay in cancer registration, the 10-year reported CRC risk difference was 0.22% in intention-to-screen and 0.38% in adjusted per-protocol analyses. With a mean delay in cancer registration of 2 years, the risk difference rose to 0.44% in the intention-to-screen analysis and 0.76% in the adjusted per-protocol analysis.
• Assuming no delay in cancer registration, the number needed to invite for screening colonoscopy and number needed to undergo the procedure to prevent 1 CRC diagnosis/death were 455 and 263, respectively. These numbers decreased to 227 and 132, respectively, with a 2-year reporting delay.
• Registration delays of 1, 2, or 3 years led to an underestimated risk for CRC by 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Updated analyses ensuring complete 10- and 15-year follow-up will be crucial to derive the true reductions of CRC risk and mortality in the trial’s predefined interim and primary analysis. In the meantime, available estimates are to be interpreted with caution, as they likely severely underestimate true screening colonoscopy effects,” the authors concluded.

The lag in reporting found by the study raises questions about the time interval needed beyond the end of a study to assure its completeness, which varies across registries, wrote Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and colleagues in an invited commentary. “Publication guidelines should be strengthened to ensure affirmation of completeness and quality of cancer registries used for outcomes ascertainment to minimize uncertainties.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, was published online in JAMA Network Open, as was the invited commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

Exact quantification of and correction for registration delays were not possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and German Cancer Aid. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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