Colon and Rectal

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly developed quality performance measure that tracks completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a colonoscopy within 6 months of an abnormal stool-based screening test (SBT) in adults could help address high rates of incomplete CRC screening, the developers said.

As part of their work, the researchers conducted a retrospective study of 20,581 adults aged 50-75 years from 38 health systems that showed that fewer than half (48%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days of an initial abnormal SBT for CRC.

“The low follow-up rates to an abnormal SBT were initially surprising,” first author Elizabeth L. Ciemins, PhD, MPH, MA, Research and Analytics, American Medical Group Association (AMGA), Alexandria, Virginia, told this news organization.

“However, once we interviewed clinicians and learned that this was not a measure they were tracking, along with their own incorrect assumptions of a much higher follow-up rate, the low rates made sense. As is commonly said, ‘you can’t change what you don’t measure,’” she said.

The CRC screening completion measure the researchers propose “builds on and addresses an important shortcoming in an existing measure and will help ensure complete screening for CRC,” they noted in their JAMA Network Open paper.

The key elements of the follow-up measure are the date and result of a SBT and the date of the follow-up colonoscopy — if it occurred, Dr. Ciemins explained.

“Currently, health systems are not consistently tracking this measure, but they have the data elements to do so, especially if they are doing colonoscopies in-house,” she said.

Field testing showed that use of this new measure is “feasible, valid, and reliable,” the authors said. Dr. Ciemins believed this CRC screening completion measure could be widely implemented.

“Three AMGA member health systems feasibility tested the data elements and found that they could reliably abstract the required elements from electronic health records (EHRs),” she told this news organization.

The researchers are currently testing the measure among 20 AMGA member health systems, that are submitting quarterly data on a version of the specified measure.

“Advancing this measure as a quality performance measure could significantly increase the early detection of CRC, thereby improving health and ultimately saving lives,” the authors concluded in their paper.

The Right Direction, But Questions Remain

The coauthors of a linked commentary said this research highlights the “suboptimal” rates of a timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive SBT results. They applauded the authors for “focusing attention on a meaningful approach to measuring high-quality CRC screening and providing guidance for standardized measurement.”

However, several questions arise from this study, “including whether 6 months is the ideal interval for colonoscopy completion after a positive SBT result, where this measure fits in the context of existing CRC screening measures, and how to implement it in practice,” Jennifer K. Maratt, MD, with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and coauthors wrote.

“This measure alone does not address all the gaps in the screening process, nor does it address barriers to colonoscopy completion, but it points us in the right direction for measuring the success of screening programs,” Dr. Maratt and her colleagues added.

The study was supported by a grant from the AARP. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly developed quality performance measure that tracks completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a colonoscopy within 6 months of an abnormal stool-based screening test (SBT) in adults could help address high rates of incomplete CRC screening, the developers said.

As part of their work, the researchers conducted a retrospective study of 20,581 adults aged 50-75 years from 38 health systems that showed that fewer than half (48%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days of an initial abnormal SBT for CRC.

“The low follow-up rates to an abnormal SBT were initially surprising,” first author Elizabeth L. Ciemins, PhD, MPH, MA, Research and Analytics, American Medical Group Association (AMGA), Alexandria, Virginia, told this news organization.

“However, once we interviewed clinicians and learned that this was not a measure they were tracking, along with their own incorrect assumptions of a much higher follow-up rate, the low rates made sense. As is commonly said, ‘you can’t change what you don’t measure,’” she said.

The CRC screening completion measure the researchers propose “builds on and addresses an important shortcoming in an existing measure and will help ensure complete screening for CRC,” they noted in their JAMA Network Open paper.

The key elements of the follow-up measure are the date and result of a SBT and the date of the follow-up colonoscopy — if it occurred, Dr. Ciemins explained.

“Currently, health systems are not consistently tracking this measure, but they have the data elements to do so, especially if they are doing colonoscopies in-house,” she said.

Field testing showed that use of this new measure is “feasible, valid, and reliable,” the authors said. Dr. Ciemins believed this CRC screening completion measure could be widely implemented.

“Three AMGA member health systems feasibility tested the data elements and found that they could reliably abstract the required elements from electronic health records (EHRs),” she told this news organization.

The researchers are currently testing the measure among 20 AMGA member health systems, that are submitting quarterly data on a version of the specified measure.

“Advancing this measure as a quality performance measure could significantly increase the early detection of CRC, thereby improving health and ultimately saving lives,” the authors concluded in their paper.

The Right Direction, But Questions Remain

The coauthors of a linked commentary said this research highlights the “suboptimal” rates of a timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive SBT results. They applauded the authors for “focusing attention on a meaningful approach to measuring high-quality CRC screening and providing guidance for standardized measurement.”

However, several questions arise from this study, “including whether 6 months is the ideal interval for colonoscopy completion after a positive SBT result, where this measure fits in the context of existing CRC screening measures, and how to implement it in practice,” Jennifer K. Maratt, MD, with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and coauthors wrote.

“This measure alone does not address all the gaps in the screening process, nor does it address barriers to colonoscopy completion, but it points us in the right direction for measuring the success of screening programs,” Dr. Maratt and her colleagues added.

The study was supported by a grant from the AARP. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly developed quality performance measure that tracks completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a colonoscopy within 6 months of an abnormal stool-based screening test (SBT) in adults could help address high rates of incomplete CRC screening, the developers said.

As part of their work, the researchers conducted a retrospective study of 20,581 adults aged 50-75 years from 38 health systems that showed that fewer than half (48%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days of an initial abnormal SBT for CRC.

“The low follow-up rates to an abnormal SBT were initially surprising,” first author Elizabeth L. Ciemins, PhD, MPH, MA, Research and Analytics, American Medical Group Association (AMGA), Alexandria, Virginia, told this news organization.

“However, once we interviewed clinicians and learned that this was not a measure they were tracking, along with their own incorrect assumptions of a much higher follow-up rate, the low rates made sense. As is commonly said, ‘you can’t change what you don’t measure,’” she said.

The CRC screening completion measure the researchers propose “builds on and addresses an important shortcoming in an existing measure and will help ensure complete screening for CRC,” they noted in their JAMA Network Open paper.

The key elements of the follow-up measure are the date and result of a SBT and the date of the follow-up colonoscopy — if it occurred, Dr. Ciemins explained.

“Currently, health systems are not consistently tracking this measure, but they have the data elements to do so, especially if they are doing colonoscopies in-house,” she said.

Field testing showed that use of this new measure is “feasible, valid, and reliable,” the authors said. Dr. Ciemins believed this CRC screening completion measure could be widely implemented.

“Three AMGA member health systems feasibility tested the data elements and found that they could reliably abstract the required elements from electronic health records (EHRs),” she told this news organization.

The researchers are currently testing the measure among 20 AMGA member health systems, that are submitting quarterly data on a version of the specified measure.

“Advancing this measure as a quality performance measure could significantly increase the early detection of CRC, thereby improving health and ultimately saving lives,” the authors concluded in their paper.

The Right Direction, But Questions Remain

The coauthors of a linked commentary said this research highlights the “suboptimal” rates of a timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive SBT results. They applauded the authors for “focusing attention on a meaningful approach to measuring high-quality CRC screening and providing guidance for standardized measurement.”

However, several questions arise from this study, “including whether 6 months is the ideal interval for colonoscopy completion after a positive SBT result, where this measure fits in the context of existing CRC screening measures, and how to implement it in practice,” Jennifer K. Maratt, MD, with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and coauthors wrote.

“This measure alone does not address all the gaps in the screening process, nor does it address barriers to colonoscopy completion, but it points us in the right direction for measuring the success of screening programs,” Dr. Maratt and her colleagues added.

The study was supported by a grant from the AARP. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Being positive for Helicobacter pylori is associated with a higher risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and CRC mortality, new data show; however, a 2-week course of antibiotics to eliminate the bacterial infection can reduce the risk of developing and dying from CRC.

METHODOLOGY:

• H pylori is a known cause of peptic ulcers and stomach cancer and has been classified as a group I carcinogen by the World Health Organization›s International Agency for Research on Cancer.
• Studies showed that H pylori increases the risk for gastric cancer and may increase the risk for CRC, but evidence supporting the CRC connection remains inconsistent.
• To investigate a possible H pylori-CRC link, investigators reviewed CRC incidence and mortality in a nationwide cohort of 812,736 veterans tested for H pylori at Veterans Health Administration facilities; of the 205,178 (25.2%) who tested positive for H pylori, 134,417 (34%) were treated.
• Patients were followed from their first H pylori test, and researchers tracked subsequent CRC diagnoses as well as CRC-related and non-CRC–related deaths.

TAKEAWAY:

• H pylori infection was associated with an 18% higher risk for CRC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18) and a 12% higher risk for CRC mortality (aHR, 1.12).
• Untreated patients had a 23% higher risk for CRC (aHR, 1.23) and a 40% higher risk for CRC mortality (aHR, 1.40) than treated individuals.
• Over the 15-year follow-up, receiving treatment for H pylori infection vs no treatment was associated with a lower risk of developing and dying from CRC (absolute risk reduction, 0.23%-0.35%). For context, among individuals receiving a screening colonoscopy, the invasive test was associated with a 0.84%-1.22% absolute risk reduction in CRC incidence and a 0.15-0.30% absolute risk reduction in CRC mortality.
• Excluding patients diagnosed with CRC within a year of H pylori testing did not change the associations in the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“We would like to highlight the potentially exciting clinical implications of these findings,” the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote. “Although the mechanistic connection between H pylori and colorectal cancer is not fully resolved,” the finding that eliminating H pylori “could reduce both gastric and colorectal cancers is incredibly potent and should be considered in clinical care for individuals at high risk for GI [gastrointestinal] cancers.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Diego, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, alongside the accompanying editorial by Julia Butt, PhD, of the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, and Meira Epplein, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited to US veterans, which means generalizability to other populations needed to be confirmed. There may have been differences in CRC risk factors between treated and untreated patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the Veterans Health Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Investigators reported ties to numerous companies, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Guardant Health, and Medscape Medical News, publisher of this article. The editorialists had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Being positive for Helicobacter pylori is associated with a higher risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and CRC mortality, new data show; however, a 2-week course of antibiotics to eliminate the bacterial infection can reduce the risk of developing and dying from CRC.

METHODOLOGY:

• H pylori is a known cause of peptic ulcers and stomach cancer and has been classified as a group I carcinogen by the World Health Organization›s International Agency for Research on Cancer.
• Studies showed that H pylori increases the risk for gastric cancer and may increase the risk for CRC, but evidence supporting the CRC connection remains inconsistent.
• To investigate a possible H pylori-CRC link, investigators reviewed CRC incidence and mortality in a nationwide cohort of 812,736 veterans tested for H pylori at Veterans Health Administration facilities; of the 205,178 (25.2%) who tested positive for H pylori, 134,417 (34%) were treated.
• Patients were followed from their first H pylori test, and researchers tracked subsequent CRC diagnoses as well as CRC-related and non-CRC–related deaths.

TAKEAWAY:

• H pylori infection was associated with an 18% higher risk for CRC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18) and a 12% higher risk for CRC mortality (aHR, 1.12).
• Untreated patients had a 23% higher risk for CRC (aHR, 1.23) and a 40% higher risk for CRC mortality (aHR, 1.40) than treated individuals.
• Over the 15-year follow-up, receiving treatment for H pylori infection vs no treatment was associated with a lower risk of developing and dying from CRC (absolute risk reduction, 0.23%-0.35%). For context, among individuals receiving a screening colonoscopy, the invasive test was associated with a 0.84%-1.22% absolute risk reduction in CRC incidence and a 0.15-0.30% absolute risk reduction in CRC mortality.
• Excluding patients diagnosed with CRC within a year of H pylori testing did not change the associations in the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“We would like to highlight the potentially exciting clinical implications of these findings,” the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote. “Although the mechanistic connection between H pylori and colorectal cancer is not fully resolved,” the finding that eliminating H pylori “could reduce both gastric and colorectal cancers is incredibly potent and should be considered in clinical care for individuals at high risk for GI [gastrointestinal] cancers.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Diego, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, alongside the accompanying editorial by Julia Butt, PhD, of the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, and Meira Epplein, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited to US veterans, which means generalizability to other populations needed to be confirmed. There may have been differences in CRC risk factors between treated and untreated patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the Veterans Health Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Investigators reported ties to numerous companies, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Guardant Health, and Medscape Medical News, publisher of this article. The editorialists had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Being positive for Helicobacter pylori is associated with a higher risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and CRC mortality, new data show; however, a 2-week course of antibiotics to eliminate the bacterial infection can reduce the risk of developing and dying from CRC.

METHODOLOGY:

• H pylori is a known cause of peptic ulcers and stomach cancer and has been classified as a group I carcinogen by the World Health Organization›s International Agency for Research on Cancer.
• Studies showed that H pylori increases the risk for gastric cancer and may increase the risk for CRC, but evidence supporting the CRC connection remains inconsistent.
• To investigate a possible H pylori-CRC link, investigators reviewed CRC incidence and mortality in a nationwide cohort of 812,736 veterans tested for H pylori at Veterans Health Administration facilities; of the 205,178 (25.2%) who tested positive for H pylori, 134,417 (34%) were treated.
• Patients were followed from their first H pylori test, and researchers tracked subsequent CRC diagnoses as well as CRC-related and non-CRC–related deaths.

TAKEAWAY:

• H pylori infection was associated with an 18% higher risk for CRC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18) and a 12% higher risk for CRC mortality (aHR, 1.12).
• Untreated patients had a 23% higher risk for CRC (aHR, 1.23) and a 40% higher risk for CRC mortality (aHR, 1.40) than treated individuals.
• Over the 15-year follow-up, receiving treatment for H pylori infection vs no treatment was associated with a lower risk of developing and dying from CRC (absolute risk reduction, 0.23%-0.35%). For context, among individuals receiving a screening colonoscopy, the invasive test was associated with a 0.84%-1.22% absolute risk reduction in CRC incidence and a 0.15-0.30% absolute risk reduction in CRC mortality.
• Excluding patients diagnosed with CRC within a year of H pylori testing did not change the associations in the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“We would like to highlight the potentially exciting clinical implications of these findings,” the authors of an accompanying editorial wrote. “Although the mechanistic connection between H pylori and colorectal cancer is not fully resolved,” the finding that eliminating H pylori “could reduce both gastric and colorectal cancers is incredibly potent and should be considered in clinical care for individuals at high risk for GI [gastrointestinal] cancers.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Diego, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, alongside the accompanying editorial by Julia Butt, PhD, of the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, and Meira Epplein, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited to US veterans, which means generalizability to other populations needed to be confirmed. There may have been differences in CRC risk factors between treated and untreated patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the Veterans Health Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Investigators reported ties to numerous companies, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Guardant Health, and Medscape Medical News, publisher of this article. The editorialists had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopy with computer-aided detection (CADe) fails to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) in real-world, nonrandomized trials, according to investigators.

Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”

RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.

The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.

University of Kansas Medical Center

“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”

This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.

CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).

“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.

While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.

Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).

Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.

“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”

Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.

“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.

This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.

Colonoscopy with computer-aided detection (CADe) fails to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) in real-world, nonrandomized trials, according to investigators.

Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”

RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.

The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.

University of Kansas Medical Center

“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”

This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.

CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).

“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.

While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.

Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).

Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.

“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”

Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.

“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.

This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.

Colonoscopy with computer-aided detection (CADe) fails to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) in real-world, nonrandomized trials, according to investigators.

Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”

RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.

The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.

University of Kansas Medical Center

“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”

This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.

CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).

“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.

While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.

Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).

Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.

“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”

Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.

“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.

This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.

TOPLINE:

Despite concerns about malpractice risk among physicians, investigators found no successful malpractice litigation related to active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
• Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and  or  from 1990 to 2022.
• Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
• Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
• In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
• The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
• No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.

IN PRACTICE:

“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers did not provide any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite concerns about malpractice risk among physicians, investigators found no successful malpractice litigation related to active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
• Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and  or  from 1990 to 2022.
• Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
• Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
• In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
• The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
• No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.

IN PRACTICE:

“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers did not provide any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite concerns about malpractice risk among physicians, investigators found no successful malpractice litigation related to active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
• Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and  or  from 1990 to 2022.
• Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
• Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
• In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
• The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
• No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.

IN PRACTICE:

“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers did not provide any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.” 

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.” 

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.”