Colon and Rectal

TOPLINE:

ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
• ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
• The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.

TAKEAWAY:

• ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
• ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
• The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
• ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
• The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.

TAKEAWAY:

• ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
• ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
• The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
• ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
• The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.

TAKEAWAY:

• ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
• ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
• The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who are cancer-free 5 years after surgery, the incidence of late recurrence or metachronous disease after 5 years is low and has decreased over time, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent treatment advances in CRC have reduced the likelihood that patients with nonmetastatic disease will recur or develop a second primary cancer more than 6 months after the first. Although late recurrences and metachronous CRC remain infrequent, it’s not clear if patients might benefit from longer term surveillance.
• To investigate whether extending surveillance beyond the recommended 5 years is beneficial, researchers assessed the incidence of late recurrence, metachronous CRC, and second primary cancers 5 years after surgical resection with curative intent.
• The researchers identified patients with stages I-III CRC, under age 80 years, from Danish healthcare registries who underwent surgical resection between January 2004 and December 2013.
• A total of 8883 patients were followed from 5 years after primary surgery until the date of recurrence, metachronous CRC, or second non-CRC primary cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Between 5 and 10 years after surgery, 370 survivors developed late recurrence (4.16%), 270 developed metachronous disease (3.0%), and 635 were diagnosed with a second primary cancer (7.15%).
• During 2009-2013 and 2004-2008, the risk for late recurrence decreased by 48% (5.6% vs 2.9%; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.52) and the risk for metachronous disease decreased by 50% (4.1% vs 2.1%; sHR, 0.50).
• During the same timeframe, the risk for second non-CRC primary cancer remained unchanged (7.1% vs 7.1%; sHR, 0.98).
• Compared with patients diagnosed with late recurrences (46%), 5-year overall survival was higher for patients with metachronous CRC (72%; adjusted HR, 0.37) and slightly higher for those with second primary cancers (48%; adjusted HR, 0.78).

IN PRACTICE:

Because the incidences of late recurrence and metachronous CRC are low and decreased between 2004 and 2013, the data do not support extending CRC-specific surveillance beyond 5 years, the authors concluded. “Symptoms or suspicion of a cancer occurring 5-10 years from primary CRC treatment, is more likely to represent a non-CRC cancer (7.1%).”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jesper Nors from Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, was published on February 7, 2024, in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Misclassification of a late recurrence or metachronous CRC could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Innovation Fund Denmark, and the Danish Cancer Society. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who are cancer-free 5 years after surgery, the incidence of late recurrence or metachronous disease after 5 years is low and has decreased over time, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent treatment advances in CRC have reduced the likelihood that patients with nonmetastatic disease will recur or develop a second primary cancer more than 6 months after the first. Although late recurrences and metachronous CRC remain infrequent, it’s not clear if patients might benefit from longer term surveillance.
• To investigate whether extending surveillance beyond the recommended 5 years is beneficial, researchers assessed the incidence of late recurrence, metachronous CRC, and second primary cancers 5 years after surgical resection with curative intent.
• The researchers identified patients with stages I-III CRC, under age 80 years, from Danish healthcare registries who underwent surgical resection between January 2004 and December 2013.
• A total of 8883 patients were followed from 5 years after primary surgery until the date of recurrence, metachronous CRC, or second non-CRC primary cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Between 5 and 10 years after surgery, 370 survivors developed late recurrence (4.16%), 270 developed metachronous disease (3.0%), and 635 were diagnosed with a second primary cancer (7.15%).
• During 2009-2013 and 2004-2008, the risk for late recurrence decreased by 48% (5.6% vs 2.9%; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.52) and the risk for metachronous disease decreased by 50% (4.1% vs 2.1%; sHR, 0.50).
• During the same timeframe, the risk for second non-CRC primary cancer remained unchanged (7.1% vs 7.1%; sHR, 0.98).
• Compared with patients diagnosed with late recurrences (46%), 5-year overall survival was higher for patients with metachronous CRC (72%; adjusted HR, 0.37) and slightly higher for those with second primary cancers (48%; adjusted HR, 0.78).

IN PRACTICE:

Because the incidences of late recurrence and metachronous CRC are low and decreased between 2004 and 2013, the data do not support extending CRC-specific surveillance beyond 5 years, the authors concluded. “Symptoms or suspicion of a cancer occurring 5-10 years from primary CRC treatment, is more likely to represent a non-CRC cancer (7.1%).”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jesper Nors from Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, was published on February 7, 2024, in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Misclassification of a late recurrence or metachronous CRC could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Innovation Fund Denmark, and the Danish Cancer Society. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who are cancer-free 5 years after surgery, the incidence of late recurrence or metachronous disease after 5 years is low and has decreased over time, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent treatment advances in CRC have reduced the likelihood that patients with nonmetastatic disease will recur or develop a second primary cancer more than 6 months after the first. Although late recurrences and metachronous CRC remain infrequent, it’s not clear if patients might benefit from longer term surveillance.
• To investigate whether extending surveillance beyond the recommended 5 years is beneficial, researchers assessed the incidence of late recurrence, metachronous CRC, and second primary cancers 5 years after surgical resection with curative intent.
• The researchers identified patients with stages I-III CRC, under age 80 years, from Danish healthcare registries who underwent surgical resection between January 2004 and December 2013.
• A total of 8883 patients were followed from 5 years after primary surgery until the date of recurrence, metachronous CRC, or second non-CRC primary cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Between 5 and 10 years after surgery, 370 survivors developed late recurrence (4.16%), 270 developed metachronous disease (3.0%), and 635 were diagnosed with a second primary cancer (7.15%).
• During 2009-2013 and 2004-2008, the risk for late recurrence decreased by 48% (5.6% vs 2.9%; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.52) and the risk for metachronous disease decreased by 50% (4.1% vs 2.1%; sHR, 0.50).
• During the same timeframe, the risk for second non-CRC primary cancer remained unchanged (7.1% vs 7.1%; sHR, 0.98).
• Compared with patients diagnosed with late recurrences (46%), 5-year overall survival was higher for patients with metachronous CRC (72%; adjusted HR, 0.37) and slightly higher for those with second primary cancers (48%; adjusted HR, 0.78).

IN PRACTICE:

Because the incidences of late recurrence and metachronous CRC are low and decreased between 2004 and 2013, the data do not support extending CRC-specific surveillance beyond 5 years, the authors concluded. “Symptoms or suspicion of a cancer occurring 5-10 years from primary CRC treatment, is more likely to represent a non-CRC cancer (7.1%).”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jesper Nors from Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, was published on February 7, 2024, in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Misclassification of a late recurrence or metachronous CRC could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Innovation Fund Denmark, and the Danish Cancer Society. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has expanded its guidance on medical device sterilization to include vaporized hydrogen peroxide, according to an agency press release issued on January 8.

The update is intended to promote wider use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) as a viable alternative to ethylene oxide (EtO). The FDA guidance on sterile devices has been revised to include VHP.

The acceptance of VHP as an Established Category A method of sterilization is another step toward the FDA’s larger goal of reducing EtO, according to the release.

Sterilization is essential for certain medical devices, but the use of EtO, currently the most common method, involves the release of emissions that are potentially harmful to health, and the FDA seeks to identify safe and effective alternatives to reduce risk to the environment and communities where device sterilization occurs. Current Established Category A sterilization methods include moist heat, dry heat, EtO, and radiation. 

FDA

“Vaporized hydrogen peroxide’s addition as an established sterilization method helps us build a more resilient supply chain for sterilized devices that can help prevent medical device shortages,” Suzanne Schwartz, MD, director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. “As innovations in sterilization advance, the FDA will continue to seek additional modalities that deliver safe and effective sterilization methods that best protect public health,” she said.

The FDA has supported the development of EtO alternatives since 2019, and remains committed to reducing EtO emissions and also to avoiding potential device shortages, according to the release.

“Ethylene oxide is highly flammable and carcinogenic and poses exposure-related safety concerns for reprocessing staff, as well as environmental risks,” said Venkataraman R. Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an interview. “These risks have led some states or regions to ban or limit its use, but despite these risks, it is currently the most commonly used sterilization technique for medical devices in the United States,” he said. Therefore, coming up with alternatives has been a high priority for the FDA, he added.

VHP has several advantages over EtO, Dr. Muthusamy said. VHP breaks down safely into water and oxygen, with low residual levels after exposure, and has no known oxidation or discoloration effects. In addition, VHP has a low temperature, and should theoretically be safe to use with endoscopes, although data are lacking, he said.

Dr. Muthusamy said that he was not yet too familiar with VHP as a technique, in part because most accessories in GI are single-use.

Primary issues to expanding the use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide as a sterilizing agent in GI clinical practice include availability and the cost of acquiring the devices needed, Dr. Muthusamy told GI & Hepatology News. “Also, the comparative efficacy of this technique in sterilizing GI endoscopes to ethylene oxide and the impact of VHP on scope durability and performance will need to be assessed, and the impact of VHP on the health and safety of reprocessing staff will need to be assessed and monitored,” he said.

There is an interest in the GI community in “green” endoscopy and reducing waste, Dr. Muthusamy said. If an inexpensive, safe, and cost-effective option for sterilization of other devices beyond endoscopes exists, “perhaps we could reduce our use of some disposables as well,” he said.

Dr. Muthusamy had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

The US Food and Drug Administration has expanded its guidance on medical device sterilization to include vaporized hydrogen peroxide, according to an agency press release issued on January 8.

The update is intended to promote wider use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) as a viable alternative to ethylene oxide (EtO). The FDA guidance on sterile devices has been revised to include VHP.

The acceptance of VHP as an Established Category A method of sterilization is another step toward the FDA’s larger goal of reducing EtO, according to the release.

Sterilization is essential for certain medical devices, but the use of EtO, currently the most common method, involves the release of emissions that are potentially harmful to health, and the FDA seeks to identify safe and effective alternatives to reduce risk to the environment and communities where device sterilization occurs. Current Established Category A sterilization methods include moist heat, dry heat, EtO, and radiation. 

FDA

“Vaporized hydrogen peroxide’s addition as an established sterilization method helps us build a more resilient supply chain for sterilized devices that can help prevent medical device shortages,” Suzanne Schwartz, MD, director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. “As innovations in sterilization advance, the FDA will continue to seek additional modalities that deliver safe and effective sterilization methods that best protect public health,” she said.

The FDA has supported the development of EtO alternatives since 2019, and remains committed to reducing EtO emissions and also to avoiding potential device shortages, according to the release.

“Ethylene oxide is highly flammable and carcinogenic and poses exposure-related safety concerns for reprocessing staff, as well as environmental risks,” said Venkataraman R. Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an interview. “These risks have led some states or regions to ban or limit its use, but despite these risks, it is currently the most commonly used sterilization technique for medical devices in the United States,” he said. Therefore, coming up with alternatives has been a high priority for the FDA, he added.

VHP has several advantages over EtO, Dr. Muthusamy said. VHP breaks down safely into water and oxygen, with low residual levels after exposure, and has no known oxidation or discoloration effects. In addition, VHP has a low temperature, and should theoretically be safe to use with endoscopes, although data are lacking, he said.

Dr. Muthusamy said that he was not yet too familiar with VHP as a technique, in part because most accessories in GI are single-use.

Primary issues to expanding the use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide as a sterilizing agent in GI clinical practice include availability and the cost of acquiring the devices needed, Dr. Muthusamy told GI & Hepatology News. “Also, the comparative efficacy of this technique in sterilizing GI endoscopes to ethylene oxide and the impact of VHP on scope durability and performance will need to be assessed, and the impact of VHP on the health and safety of reprocessing staff will need to be assessed and monitored,” he said.

There is an interest in the GI community in “green” endoscopy and reducing waste, Dr. Muthusamy said. If an inexpensive, safe, and cost-effective option for sterilization of other devices beyond endoscopes exists, “perhaps we could reduce our use of some disposables as well,” he said.

Dr. Muthusamy had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

The US Food and Drug Administration has expanded its guidance on medical device sterilization to include vaporized hydrogen peroxide, according to an agency press release issued on January 8.

The update is intended to promote wider use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) as a viable alternative to ethylene oxide (EtO). The FDA guidance on sterile devices has been revised to include VHP.

The acceptance of VHP as an Established Category A method of sterilization is another step toward the FDA’s larger goal of reducing EtO, according to the release.

Sterilization is essential for certain medical devices, but the use of EtO, currently the most common method, involves the release of emissions that are potentially harmful to health, and the FDA seeks to identify safe and effective alternatives to reduce risk to the environment and communities where device sterilization occurs. Current Established Category A sterilization methods include moist heat, dry heat, EtO, and radiation. 

FDA

“Vaporized hydrogen peroxide’s addition as an established sterilization method helps us build a more resilient supply chain for sterilized devices that can help prevent medical device shortages,” Suzanne Schwartz, MD, director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. “As innovations in sterilization advance, the FDA will continue to seek additional modalities that deliver safe and effective sterilization methods that best protect public health,” she said.

The FDA has supported the development of EtO alternatives since 2019, and remains committed to reducing EtO emissions and also to avoiding potential device shortages, according to the release.

“Ethylene oxide is highly flammable and carcinogenic and poses exposure-related safety concerns for reprocessing staff, as well as environmental risks,” said Venkataraman R. Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an interview. “These risks have led some states or regions to ban or limit its use, but despite these risks, it is currently the most commonly used sterilization technique for medical devices in the United States,” he said. Therefore, coming up with alternatives has been a high priority for the FDA, he added.

VHP has several advantages over EtO, Dr. Muthusamy said. VHP breaks down safely into water and oxygen, with low residual levels after exposure, and has no known oxidation or discoloration effects. In addition, VHP has a low temperature, and should theoretically be safe to use with endoscopes, although data are lacking, he said.

Dr. Muthusamy said that he was not yet too familiar with VHP as a technique, in part because most accessories in GI are single-use.

Primary issues to expanding the use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide as a sterilizing agent in GI clinical practice include availability and the cost of acquiring the devices needed, Dr. Muthusamy told GI & Hepatology News. “Also, the comparative efficacy of this technique in sterilizing GI endoscopes to ethylene oxide and the impact of VHP on scope durability and performance will need to be assessed, and the impact of VHP on the health and safety of reprocessing staff will need to be assessed and monitored,” he said.

There is an interest in the GI community in “green” endoscopy and reducing waste, Dr. Muthusamy said. If an inexpensive, safe, and cost-effective option for sterilization of other devices beyond endoscopes exists, “perhaps we could reduce our use of some disposables as well,” he said.

Dr. Muthusamy had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

TOPLINE:

Tumor regrowth predicts distant metastases in patients with rectal cancer undergoing surveillance after complete clinical responses to neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• “Watch and wait” is generally offered to patients with rectal cancer who have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy.
• Up to 30% of tumors regrow within 3 years, and about 5% of patients develop distant metastases.
• To get a better handle on the risk factors, investigators identified 508 watch-and-wait patients from the International Watch & Wait database who had a local regrowth and underwent resection.
• The team compared them with 893 patients from a Spanish registry who had total mesorectal excisions after neoadjuvant therapy and who were found to have had a nearly complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, meaning that 90% or more of their tumor was gone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Three-year distant metastasis–free survival was 75% in the watch-and-wait/regrowth group vs 87% in the upfront surgery arm (P = .001); the results held when the two groups were stratified by pathological T stage and nodal status.
• Patients with local regrowth also had a higher risk of developing distant metastasis (22.8% vs 10.2% at 3 years).
• Local regrowth was an independent risk factor for distant metastasis, along with higher pathological T stage and positive nodal status on the resected regrowth specimen.
• Baseline clinical T stage and nodal status were not significantly associated with risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of local regrowth may result in worse oncological outcomes ... Efforts should be made to minimize the risk of local regrowth among patients undergoing watch and wait by the use of very stringent criteria for the identification of a clinical complete response.” There may be a role for ctDNA to improve patient selection for watch and wait.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Laura Melina Fernandez of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal, and presented on January 20, 2024, at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of “complete clinical response” and selection of patients for watch and wait varied across International Watch & Wait database institutions. Recruitment occurred before implementation of total neoadjuvant therapy regimens.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no external funding for the work. The lead investigator didn’t have any disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tumor regrowth predicts distant metastases in patients with rectal cancer undergoing surveillance after complete clinical responses to neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• “Watch and wait” is generally offered to patients with rectal cancer who have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy.
• Up to 30% of tumors regrow within 3 years, and about 5% of patients develop distant metastases.
• To get a better handle on the risk factors, investigators identified 508 watch-and-wait patients from the International Watch & Wait database who had a local regrowth and underwent resection.
• The team compared them with 893 patients from a Spanish registry who had total mesorectal excisions after neoadjuvant therapy and who were found to have had a nearly complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, meaning that 90% or more of their tumor was gone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Three-year distant metastasis–free survival was 75% in the watch-and-wait/regrowth group vs 87% in the upfront surgery arm (P = .001); the results held when the two groups were stratified by pathological T stage and nodal status.
• Patients with local regrowth also had a higher risk of developing distant metastasis (22.8% vs 10.2% at 3 years).
• Local regrowth was an independent risk factor for distant metastasis, along with higher pathological T stage and positive nodal status on the resected regrowth specimen.
• Baseline clinical T stage and nodal status were not significantly associated with risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of local regrowth may result in worse oncological outcomes ... Efforts should be made to minimize the risk of local regrowth among patients undergoing watch and wait by the use of very stringent criteria for the identification of a clinical complete response.” There may be a role for ctDNA to improve patient selection for watch and wait.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Laura Melina Fernandez of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal, and presented on January 20, 2024, at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of “complete clinical response” and selection of patients for watch and wait varied across International Watch & Wait database institutions. Recruitment occurred before implementation of total neoadjuvant therapy regimens.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no external funding for the work. The lead investigator didn’t have any disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tumor regrowth predicts distant metastases in patients with rectal cancer undergoing surveillance after complete clinical responses to neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• “Watch and wait” is generally offered to patients with rectal cancer who have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy.
• Up to 30% of tumors regrow within 3 years, and about 5% of patients develop distant metastases.
• To get a better handle on the risk factors, investigators identified 508 watch-and-wait patients from the International Watch & Wait database who had a local regrowth and underwent resection.
• The team compared them with 893 patients from a Spanish registry who had total mesorectal excisions after neoadjuvant therapy and who were found to have had a nearly complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, meaning that 90% or more of their tumor was gone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Three-year distant metastasis–free survival was 75% in the watch-and-wait/regrowth group vs 87% in the upfront surgery arm (P = .001); the results held when the two groups were stratified by pathological T stage and nodal status.
• Patients with local regrowth also had a higher risk of developing distant metastasis (22.8% vs 10.2% at 3 years).
• Local regrowth was an independent risk factor for distant metastasis, along with higher pathological T stage and positive nodal status on the resected regrowth specimen.
• Baseline clinical T stage and nodal status were not significantly associated with risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of local regrowth may result in worse oncological outcomes ... Efforts should be made to minimize the risk of local regrowth among patients undergoing watch and wait by the use of very stringent criteria for the identification of a clinical complete response.” There may be a role for ctDNA to improve patient selection for watch and wait.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Laura Melina Fernandez of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal, and presented on January 20, 2024, at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of “complete clinical response” and selection of patients for watch and wait varied across International Watch & Wait database institutions. Recruitment occurred before implementation of total neoadjuvant therapy regimens.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no external funding for the work. The lead investigator didn’t have any disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) epidemiology is changing due to a birth cohort effect, also called birth cohort CRC — the observed phenomena of the rising risk for CRC across successive generations of people born in 1960 and later — according to a new narrative review.

Birth cohort CRC is associated with increasing rectal cancer (greater than colon cancer) diagnosis and distant-stage (greater than local-stage) CRC diagnosis, and a rising incidence of early-onset CRC (EOCRC), defined as occurring before age 50.

Recognizing this birth cohort effect could improve the understanding of CRC risk factors, etiology, mechanisms, as well as the public health consequences of rising rates.

“The changing epidemiology means that we need to redouble our efforts at optimizing early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” Samir Gupta, MD, the review’s lead author and professor of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, California, told this news organization. Dr. Gupta serves as the co-lead for the cancer control program at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health.

This requires “being alert for potential red flag signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer, such as iron deficiency anemia and rectal bleeding, that are otherwise unexplained, including for those under age 45,” he said.

We also should make “sure that all people eligible for screening — at age 45 and older — have every opportunity to get screened for colorectal cancer,” Dr. Gupta added.

The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Tracking Birth Cohort Trends

CRC rates have increased in the United States among people born since the early 1960s, the authors wrote.

Generation X (individuals born in 1965-1980) experienced an increase in EOCRC, and rates subsequently increased in this generation after age 50. Rates are 1.22-fold higher among people born in 1965-1969 and 1.58-fold higher among those born 1975-1979 than among people born in 1950-1954.

Now rates are also increasing across younger generations, particularly among Millennials (individuals born in 1981-1996) as they enter mid-adulthood. Incidence rates are 1.89-fold higher among people born in 1980-1984 and 2.98-fold higher among those born in 1990-1994 than among individuals born in 1950-1954.

These birth cohort effects are evident globally, despite differences in population age structures, screening programs, and diagnostic strategies around the world. Due to this ongoing trend, physicians anticipate that CRC rates will likely continue to increase as higher-risk birth cohorts become older, the authors wrote.

Notably, four important shifts in CRC incidence are apparent, they noted. First, rates are steadily increasing up to age 50 and plateauing after age 60. Rectal cancers are now predominant through ages 50-59. Rates of distant-stage disease have increased most rapidly among ages 30-49 and more slowly decreased among ages 60-79 compared with those of local-stage disease. In addition, the increasing rates of EOCRC have been observed across all racial and ethnic groups since the early 1990s.

These shifts led to major changes in the types of patients diagnosed with CRC now vs 30 years ago, with a higher proportion being patients younger than 60, as well as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic patients.

The combination of age-related increases in CRC and birth cohort–related trends will likely lead to substantial increases in the number of people diagnosed with CRC in coming years, especially as Generation X patients move into their 50s and 60s, the authors wrote.
 

Research and Clinical Implications

Birth cohort CRC, including increasing EOCRC incidence, likely is driven by a range of influences, including demographic, lifestyle, early life, environmental, genetic, and somatic factors, as well as interactions among them, the authors noted. Examples within these broad categories include male sex, food insecurity, income inequality, diabetes, alcohol use, less healthy dietary patterns, in utero exposure to certain medications, and microbiome concerns such as early life antibiotic exposure or dysbiosis.

“From a research perspective, this means that we need to think about risk factors and mechanisms that are associated with birth cohorts, not just age at diagnosis,” Dr. Gupta said. “To date, most studies of changing epidemiology have not taken into account birth cohort, such as whether someone is Generation X or later versus pre-Baby Boomer.”

Although additional research is needed, the epidemiology changes have several immediate clinical implications, Dr. Gupta said. For those younger than 45, it is critical to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of CRC, such as hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, and unintentional weight loss, as well as family history.

For ages 45 and older, a major focus should be placed on increasing screening participation and follow-up after abnormal results, addressing disparities in screening participation, and optimizing screening quality.

In addition, as CRC incidence continues to increase, health systems and policymakers should ensure every patient has access to guideline-appropriate care and innovative clinical trials, the authors wrote. This access may be particularly important to address the increasing burden of rectal cancer, as treatment approaches rapidly evolve toward more effective therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation prior to surgery, and with less-morbid treatments on the horizon, they added.
 

‘An Interesting Concept’

“Birth cohort CRC is an interesting concept that allows people to think of their CRC risk according to their birth cohort in addition to age,” Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, chief of the Molecular Pathological Epidemiology program at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

Dr. Ogino, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as a member of the cancer immunology and cancer epidemiology programs at the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center. In studies of EOCRC, he and colleagues have found various biogeographical and pathogenic trends across age groups.

“More research is needed to disentangle the complex etiologies of birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC,” Dr. Ogino said. “Tumor cells and tissues have certain past and ongoing pathological marks, which we can detect to better understand birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC.”

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grants. Dr. Gupta disclosed consulting for Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, Universal Diagnostics, InterVenn Bio, and CellMax. Another author reported consulting for Freenome, Exact Sciences, Medtronic, and Geneoscopy. Dr. Ogino reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Colorectal cancer (CRC) epidemiology is changing due to a birth cohort effect, also called birth cohort CRC — the observed phenomena of the rising risk for CRC across successive generations of people born in 1960 and later — according to a new narrative review.

Birth cohort CRC is associated with increasing rectal cancer (greater than colon cancer) diagnosis and distant-stage (greater than local-stage) CRC diagnosis, and a rising incidence of early-onset CRC (EOCRC), defined as occurring before age 50.

Recognizing this birth cohort effect could improve the understanding of CRC risk factors, etiology, mechanisms, as well as the public health consequences of rising rates.

“The changing epidemiology means that we need to redouble our efforts at optimizing early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” Samir Gupta, MD, the review’s lead author and professor of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, California, told this news organization. Dr. Gupta serves as the co-lead for the cancer control program at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health.

This requires “being alert for potential red flag signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer, such as iron deficiency anemia and rectal bleeding, that are otherwise unexplained, including for those under age 45,” he said.

We also should make “sure that all people eligible for screening — at age 45 and older — have every opportunity to get screened for colorectal cancer,” Dr. Gupta added.

The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Tracking Birth Cohort Trends

CRC rates have increased in the United States among people born since the early 1960s, the authors wrote.

Generation X (individuals born in 1965-1980) experienced an increase in EOCRC, and rates subsequently increased in this generation after age 50. Rates are 1.22-fold higher among people born in 1965-1969 and 1.58-fold higher among those born 1975-1979 than among people born in 1950-1954.

Now rates are also increasing across younger generations, particularly among Millennials (individuals born in 1981-1996) as they enter mid-adulthood. Incidence rates are 1.89-fold higher among people born in 1980-1984 and 2.98-fold higher among those born in 1990-1994 than among individuals born in 1950-1954.

These birth cohort effects are evident globally, despite differences in population age structures, screening programs, and diagnostic strategies around the world. Due to this ongoing trend, physicians anticipate that CRC rates will likely continue to increase as higher-risk birth cohorts become older, the authors wrote.

Notably, four important shifts in CRC incidence are apparent, they noted. First, rates are steadily increasing up to age 50 and plateauing after age 60. Rectal cancers are now predominant through ages 50-59. Rates of distant-stage disease have increased most rapidly among ages 30-49 and more slowly decreased among ages 60-79 compared with those of local-stage disease. In addition, the increasing rates of EOCRC have been observed across all racial and ethnic groups since the early 1990s.

These shifts led to major changes in the types of patients diagnosed with CRC now vs 30 years ago, with a higher proportion being patients younger than 60, as well as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic patients.

The combination of age-related increases in CRC and birth cohort–related trends will likely lead to substantial increases in the number of people diagnosed with CRC in coming years, especially as Generation X patients move into their 50s and 60s, the authors wrote.
 

Research and Clinical Implications

Birth cohort CRC, including increasing EOCRC incidence, likely is driven by a range of influences, including demographic, lifestyle, early life, environmental, genetic, and somatic factors, as well as interactions among them, the authors noted. Examples within these broad categories include male sex, food insecurity, income inequality, diabetes, alcohol use, less healthy dietary patterns, in utero exposure to certain medications, and microbiome concerns such as early life antibiotic exposure or dysbiosis.

“From a research perspective, this means that we need to think about risk factors and mechanisms that are associated with birth cohorts, not just age at diagnosis,” Dr. Gupta said. “To date, most studies of changing epidemiology have not taken into account birth cohort, such as whether someone is Generation X or later versus pre-Baby Boomer.”

Although additional research is needed, the epidemiology changes have several immediate clinical implications, Dr. Gupta said. For those younger than 45, it is critical to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of CRC, such as hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, and unintentional weight loss, as well as family history.

For ages 45 and older, a major focus should be placed on increasing screening participation and follow-up after abnormal results, addressing disparities in screening participation, and optimizing screening quality.

In addition, as CRC incidence continues to increase, health systems and policymakers should ensure every patient has access to guideline-appropriate care and innovative clinical trials, the authors wrote. This access may be particularly important to address the increasing burden of rectal cancer, as treatment approaches rapidly evolve toward more effective therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation prior to surgery, and with less-morbid treatments on the horizon, they added.
 

‘An Interesting Concept’

“Birth cohort CRC is an interesting concept that allows people to think of their CRC risk according to their birth cohort in addition to age,” Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, chief of the Molecular Pathological Epidemiology program at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

Dr. Ogino, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as a member of the cancer immunology and cancer epidemiology programs at the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center. In studies of EOCRC, he and colleagues have found various biogeographical and pathogenic trends across age groups.

“More research is needed to disentangle the complex etiologies of birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC,” Dr. Ogino said. “Tumor cells and tissues have certain past and ongoing pathological marks, which we can detect to better understand birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC.”

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grants. Dr. Gupta disclosed consulting for Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, Universal Diagnostics, InterVenn Bio, and CellMax. Another author reported consulting for Freenome, Exact Sciences, Medtronic, and Geneoscopy. Dr. Ogino reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Colorectal cancer (CRC) epidemiology is changing due to a birth cohort effect, also called birth cohort CRC — the observed phenomena of the rising risk for CRC across successive generations of people born in 1960 and later — according to a new narrative review.

Birth cohort CRC is associated with increasing rectal cancer (greater than colon cancer) diagnosis and distant-stage (greater than local-stage) CRC diagnosis, and a rising incidence of early-onset CRC (EOCRC), defined as occurring before age 50.

Recognizing this birth cohort effect could improve the understanding of CRC risk factors, etiology, mechanisms, as well as the public health consequences of rising rates.

“The changing epidemiology means that we need to redouble our efforts at optimizing early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” Samir Gupta, MD, the review’s lead author and professor of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, California, told this news organization. Dr. Gupta serves as the co-lead for the cancer control program at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health.

This requires “being alert for potential red flag signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer, such as iron deficiency anemia and rectal bleeding, that are otherwise unexplained, including for those under age 45,” he said.

We also should make “sure that all people eligible for screening — at age 45 and older — have every opportunity to get screened for colorectal cancer,” Dr. Gupta added.

The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Tracking Birth Cohort Trends

CRC rates have increased in the United States among people born since the early 1960s, the authors wrote.

Generation X (individuals born in 1965-1980) experienced an increase in EOCRC, and rates subsequently increased in this generation after age 50. Rates are 1.22-fold higher among people born in 1965-1969 and 1.58-fold higher among those born 1975-1979 than among people born in 1950-1954.

Now rates are also increasing across younger generations, particularly among Millennials (individuals born in 1981-1996) as they enter mid-adulthood. Incidence rates are 1.89-fold higher among people born in 1980-1984 and 2.98-fold higher among those born in 1990-1994 than among individuals born in 1950-1954.

These birth cohort effects are evident globally, despite differences in population age structures, screening programs, and diagnostic strategies around the world. Due to this ongoing trend, physicians anticipate that CRC rates will likely continue to increase as higher-risk birth cohorts become older, the authors wrote.

Notably, four important shifts in CRC incidence are apparent, they noted. First, rates are steadily increasing up to age 50 and plateauing after age 60. Rectal cancers are now predominant through ages 50-59. Rates of distant-stage disease have increased most rapidly among ages 30-49 and more slowly decreased among ages 60-79 compared with those of local-stage disease. In addition, the increasing rates of EOCRC have been observed across all racial and ethnic groups since the early 1990s.

These shifts led to major changes in the types of patients diagnosed with CRC now vs 30 years ago, with a higher proportion being patients younger than 60, as well as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic patients.

The combination of age-related increases in CRC and birth cohort–related trends will likely lead to substantial increases in the number of people diagnosed with CRC in coming years, especially as Generation X patients move into their 50s and 60s, the authors wrote.
 

Research and Clinical Implications

Birth cohort CRC, including increasing EOCRC incidence, likely is driven by a range of influences, including demographic, lifestyle, early life, environmental, genetic, and somatic factors, as well as interactions among them, the authors noted. Examples within these broad categories include male sex, food insecurity, income inequality, diabetes, alcohol use, less healthy dietary patterns, in utero exposure to certain medications, and microbiome concerns such as early life antibiotic exposure or dysbiosis.

“From a research perspective, this means that we need to think about risk factors and mechanisms that are associated with birth cohorts, not just age at diagnosis,” Dr. Gupta said. “To date, most studies of changing epidemiology have not taken into account birth cohort, such as whether someone is Generation X or later versus pre-Baby Boomer.”

Although additional research is needed, the epidemiology changes have several immediate clinical implications, Dr. Gupta said. For those younger than 45, it is critical to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of CRC, such as hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, and unintentional weight loss, as well as family history.

For ages 45 and older, a major focus should be placed on increasing screening participation and follow-up after abnormal results, addressing disparities in screening participation, and optimizing screening quality.

In addition, as CRC incidence continues to increase, health systems and policymakers should ensure every patient has access to guideline-appropriate care and innovative clinical trials, the authors wrote. This access may be particularly important to address the increasing burden of rectal cancer, as treatment approaches rapidly evolve toward more effective therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation prior to surgery, and with less-morbid treatments on the horizon, they added.
 

‘An Interesting Concept’

“Birth cohort CRC is an interesting concept that allows people to think of their CRC risk according to their birth cohort in addition to age,” Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, chief of the Molecular Pathological Epidemiology program at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

Dr. Ogino, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as a member of the cancer immunology and cancer epidemiology programs at the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center. In studies of EOCRC, he and colleagues have found various biogeographical and pathogenic trends across age groups.

“More research is needed to disentangle the complex etiologies of birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC,” Dr. Ogino said. “Tumor cells and tissues have certain past and ongoing pathological marks, which we can detect to better understand birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC.”

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grants. Dr. Gupta disclosed consulting for Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, Universal Diagnostics, InterVenn Bio, and CellMax. Another author reported consulting for Freenome, Exact Sciences, Medtronic, and Geneoscopy. Dr. Ogino reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

In patients with colorectal cancer bearing the KRAS G12C mutation, a combination of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) G12C inhibitor sotorasib and the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor panitumumab led to an improvement in quality of life (QoL) measures compared with standard therapy.

Dominik Modest, MD, presented these new results of the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 trial at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The KRAS G12C mutation occurs in 3%-4% of metastatic colorectal cancer cases, according to Dr. Modest and the other authors of a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the primary outcome of the trial. The study included 160 patients who were randomized to once daily sotorasib (960 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto960), once daily sotorasib (240 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto240), or investigator’s choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib.

The December 2023 paper described improvements in median progression-free survival, progression or death, and objective response (OR). The authors described statistically significant improvements in disease progression or death in the Soto960 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .006) and the Soto240 group (HR, 0.58; P = .03). The objective response rate was highest in the Soto960 group (26.4%; 95% CI, 15.3%-40.3%), followed by the Soto240 group (5.7%; 95% CI, 1.2%-15.7%), and the control group (0%; 95% CI, 0.0%-6.6%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were generally similar at 35.8% (Soto960), 30.2% (Soto240), and 43.1% (control) in each group. The most common adverse events associated with sotorasib-panitumumab were skin-related toxicity and hypomagnesemia.

The new analysis showed that both doses of sotorasib also improved patient-reported outcomes from baseline to week 8, Dr. Modest, professor of medicine at Charité University of Medicine in Berlin, said at the meeting.

Compared with the chemotherapy group, there were statistically significant differences in least square mean change from baseline to week 8 for: pain at its worst in the Soto240 group (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], –1.18; 95% CI, –2.05 to –0.32) and the Soto960 group (BPI, –1.49; 95% CI, –2.36 to –0.61); and physical functioning, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core 30-item Quality of Life questionnaire, in the Soto240 (7.95; 95% CI, 2.39-13.51) and Soto960 (6.73; 95% CI, 1.05-12.41) groups. Nearly all other measures trended toward favoring the sotorasib/panitumumab groups, but did not reach statistical significance. A similar pattern was seen in time to deterioration measures. Among adverse events, diarrhea trended toward being more frequent in the intervention arms.

At week 9, 63% of patients in Soto960 and 84% in Soto240 reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGI-C), versus 37% in the chemotherapy arm. At week 17, the percentages were 77%, 59%, and 21%, respectively.

“The clinical benefits and the better quality of life outcomes associated with sotorasib at the high dose of 960 milligrams plus panitumumab establishes this combination as a potential new standard [therapy] for patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C mutant colorectal cancer, and I think it’s quite reassuring that even if you compare two active drugs versus one active drug, this does not necessarily translate into impaired quality of life assessments by the patients,” Dr. Modest said during his presentation.

CodeBreaK 300 may point the way to other dual therapies involving kinase inhibitors, according to Rona Yaeger, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial to the NEJM paper. Dr. Yaeger noted that clinical and preclinical studies had shown that targeted oncogenes like KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E alone would be insufficient in colorectal cancer.

When combined with KRAS G12C inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors prevent EGFR from participating in negative feedback loops that can otherwise lead to drug resistance. “Whether targeting [receptor tyrosine kinases like EGFR] in epithelial tumors other than those associated with colorectal cancers would improve the incidence of response to KRAS G12C inhibitors remains unknown,” wrote Dr. Yaeger, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. There is an ongoing clinical trial evaluating KRAS G12C inhibitors combined with EGFR antibodies in both lung and pancreatic cancer.

She noted that colorectal tumors have high levels of receptor tyrosine kinases, and argued that this will require higher doses of KRAS G12C inhibitors or novel drugs with higher activity. This is supported by the higher frequency of response and longer PFS at the higher dose in CodeBreaK 300, but could present a challenge: “Lowering the drug dose to manage toxic effects may limit the efficacy of the drug against some cancers,” she wrote.

Dr. Yaeger highlighted the KRYSTAL-10 phase 3 randomized trial, which is assessing the KRAS G12C inhibitor adagrasib in combination with the EGFR antibody cetuximab versus chemotherapy in advanced solid tumors with the KRAS G12C mutation.

“The CodeBreaK 300 trial is an exciting first step for targeting KRAS in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Yaeger wrote.

Dr. Modest has financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lily, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SERVIER. Dr. Yaeger has financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Mirati, Pfizer, and Zai Lab.

In patients with colorectal cancer bearing the KRAS G12C mutation, a combination of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) G12C inhibitor sotorasib and the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor panitumumab led to an improvement in quality of life (QoL) measures compared with standard therapy.

Dominik Modest, MD, presented these new results of the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 trial at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The KRAS G12C mutation occurs in 3%-4% of metastatic colorectal cancer cases, according to Dr. Modest and the other authors of a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the primary outcome of the trial. The study included 160 patients who were randomized to once daily sotorasib (960 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto960), once daily sotorasib (240 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto240), or investigator’s choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib.

The December 2023 paper described improvements in median progression-free survival, progression or death, and objective response (OR). The authors described statistically significant improvements in disease progression or death in the Soto960 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .006) and the Soto240 group (HR, 0.58; P = .03). The objective response rate was highest in the Soto960 group (26.4%; 95% CI, 15.3%-40.3%), followed by the Soto240 group (5.7%; 95% CI, 1.2%-15.7%), and the control group (0%; 95% CI, 0.0%-6.6%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were generally similar at 35.8% (Soto960), 30.2% (Soto240), and 43.1% (control) in each group. The most common adverse events associated with sotorasib-panitumumab were skin-related toxicity and hypomagnesemia.

The new analysis showed that both doses of sotorasib also improved patient-reported outcomes from baseline to week 8, Dr. Modest, professor of medicine at Charité University of Medicine in Berlin, said at the meeting.

Compared with the chemotherapy group, there were statistically significant differences in least square mean change from baseline to week 8 for: pain at its worst in the Soto240 group (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], –1.18; 95% CI, –2.05 to –0.32) and the Soto960 group (BPI, –1.49; 95% CI, –2.36 to –0.61); and physical functioning, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core 30-item Quality of Life questionnaire, in the Soto240 (7.95; 95% CI, 2.39-13.51) and Soto960 (6.73; 95% CI, 1.05-12.41) groups. Nearly all other measures trended toward favoring the sotorasib/panitumumab groups, but did not reach statistical significance. A similar pattern was seen in time to deterioration measures. Among adverse events, diarrhea trended toward being more frequent in the intervention arms.

At week 9, 63% of patients in Soto960 and 84% in Soto240 reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGI-C), versus 37% in the chemotherapy arm. At week 17, the percentages were 77%, 59%, and 21%, respectively.

“The clinical benefits and the better quality of life outcomes associated with sotorasib at the high dose of 960 milligrams plus panitumumab establishes this combination as a potential new standard [therapy] for patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C mutant colorectal cancer, and I think it’s quite reassuring that even if you compare two active drugs versus one active drug, this does not necessarily translate into impaired quality of life assessments by the patients,” Dr. Modest said during his presentation.

CodeBreaK 300 may point the way to other dual therapies involving kinase inhibitors, according to Rona Yaeger, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial to the NEJM paper. Dr. Yaeger noted that clinical and preclinical studies had shown that targeted oncogenes like KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E alone would be insufficient in colorectal cancer.

When combined with KRAS G12C inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors prevent EGFR from participating in negative feedback loops that can otherwise lead to drug resistance. “Whether targeting [receptor tyrosine kinases like EGFR] in epithelial tumors other than those associated with colorectal cancers would improve the incidence of response to KRAS G12C inhibitors remains unknown,” wrote Dr. Yaeger, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. There is an ongoing clinical trial evaluating KRAS G12C inhibitors combined with EGFR antibodies in both lung and pancreatic cancer.

She noted that colorectal tumors have high levels of receptor tyrosine kinases, and argued that this will require higher doses of KRAS G12C inhibitors or novel drugs with higher activity. This is supported by the higher frequency of response and longer PFS at the higher dose in CodeBreaK 300, but could present a challenge: “Lowering the drug dose to manage toxic effects may limit the efficacy of the drug against some cancers,” she wrote.

Dr. Yaeger highlighted the KRYSTAL-10 phase 3 randomized trial, which is assessing the KRAS G12C inhibitor adagrasib in combination with the EGFR antibody cetuximab versus chemotherapy in advanced solid tumors with the KRAS G12C mutation.

“The CodeBreaK 300 trial is an exciting first step for targeting KRAS in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Yaeger wrote.

Dr. Modest has financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lily, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SERVIER. Dr. Yaeger has financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Mirati, Pfizer, and Zai Lab.

In patients with colorectal cancer bearing the KRAS G12C mutation, a combination of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) G12C inhibitor sotorasib and the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor panitumumab led to an improvement in quality of life (QoL) measures compared with standard therapy.

Dominik Modest, MD, presented these new results of the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 trial at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The KRAS G12C mutation occurs in 3%-4% of metastatic colorectal cancer cases, according to Dr. Modest and the other authors of a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the primary outcome of the trial. The study included 160 patients who were randomized to once daily sotorasib (960 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto960), once daily sotorasib (240 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto240), or investigator’s choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib.

The December 2023 paper described improvements in median progression-free survival, progression or death, and objective response (OR). The authors described statistically significant improvements in disease progression or death in the Soto960 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .006) and the Soto240 group (HR, 0.58; P = .03). The objective response rate was highest in the Soto960 group (26.4%; 95% CI, 15.3%-40.3%), followed by the Soto240 group (5.7%; 95% CI, 1.2%-15.7%), and the control group (0%; 95% CI, 0.0%-6.6%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were generally similar at 35.8% (Soto960), 30.2% (Soto240), and 43.1% (control) in each group. The most common adverse events associated with sotorasib-panitumumab were skin-related toxicity and hypomagnesemia.

The new analysis showed that both doses of sotorasib also improved patient-reported outcomes from baseline to week 8, Dr. Modest, professor of medicine at Charité University of Medicine in Berlin, said at the meeting.

Compared with the chemotherapy group, there were statistically significant differences in least square mean change from baseline to week 8 for: pain at its worst in the Soto240 group (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], –1.18; 95% CI, –2.05 to –0.32) and the Soto960 group (BPI, –1.49; 95% CI, –2.36 to –0.61); and physical functioning, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core 30-item Quality of Life questionnaire, in the Soto240 (7.95; 95% CI, 2.39-13.51) and Soto960 (6.73; 95% CI, 1.05-12.41) groups. Nearly all other measures trended toward favoring the sotorasib/panitumumab groups, but did not reach statistical significance. A similar pattern was seen in time to deterioration measures. Among adverse events, diarrhea trended toward being more frequent in the intervention arms.

At week 9, 63% of patients in Soto960 and 84% in Soto240 reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGI-C), versus 37% in the chemotherapy arm. At week 17, the percentages were 77%, 59%, and 21%, respectively.

“The clinical benefits and the better quality of life outcomes associated with sotorasib at the high dose of 960 milligrams plus panitumumab establishes this combination as a potential new standard [therapy] for patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C mutant colorectal cancer, and I think it’s quite reassuring that even if you compare two active drugs versus one active drug, this does not necessarily translate into impaired quality of life assessments by the patients,” Dr. Modest said during his presentation.

CodeBreaK 300 may point the way to other dual therapies involving kinase inhibitors, according to Rona Yaeger, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial to the NEJM paper. Dr. Yaeger noted that clinical and preclinical studies had shown that targeted oncogenes like KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E alone would be insufficient in colorectal cancer.

When combined with KRAS G12C inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors prevent EGFR from participating in negative feedback loops that can otherwise lead to drug resistance. “Whether targeting [receptor tyrosine kinases like EGFR] in epithelial tumors other than those associated with colorectal cancers would improve the incidence of response to KRAS G12C inhibitors remains unknown,” wrote Dr. Yaeger, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. There is an ongoing clinical trial evaluating KRAS G12C inhibitors combined with EGFR antibodies in both lung and pancreatic cancer.

She noted that colorectal tumors have high levels of receptor tyrosine kinases, and argued that this will require higher doses of KRAS G12C inhibitors or novel drugs with higher activity. This is supported by the higher frequency of response and longer PFS at the higher dose in CodeBreaK 300, but could present a challenge: “Lowering the drug dose to manage toxic effects may limit the efficacy of the drug against some cancers,” she wrote.

Dr. Yaeger highlighted the KRYSTAL-10 phase 3 randomized trial, which is assessing the KRAS G12C inhibitor adagrasib in combination with the EGFR antibody cetuximab versus chemotherapy in advanced solid tumors with the KRAS G12C mutation.

“The CodeBreaK 300 trial is an exciting first step for targeting KRAS in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Yaeger wrote.

Dr. Modest has financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lily, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SERVIER. Dr. Yaeger has financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Mirati, Pfizer, and Zai Lab.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.