Colon and Rectal

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

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

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

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

Netherlands Cancer Institute

Stanford University

Study Details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ladabaum disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

Netherlands Cancer Institute

Stanford University

Study Details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ladabaum disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

Netherlands Cancer Institute

Stanford University

Study Details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ladabaum disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

Testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) increased from 22.7% in 2012 to 71.5% in 2021, but variations in access remain, with testing rates differing by cancer stage, individual hospital, patient sex, race, and insurance status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2017, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended universal testing for MMR and MSI among patients with CRC, but studies suggest that testing may still be underused.
• To assess trends and factors associated with MMR/MSI testing in the United States, researchers evaluated 834,797 patients diagnosed with stage I-IV CRC between 2012 and 2021 across 1366 Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the National Cancer Database.
• The variability in MMR/MSI testing was assessed in relation to both patient and hospital-level factors.
• Overall, 70.7% patients had colon cancer, 7.3% had rectosigmoid cancer, and 22.0% had rectal cancer. The median patient age was 66 years; just over half (53%) were men, 81.8% were White, and 11.9% were Black.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 43.9% patients underwent MMR/MSI testing, but testing rates increased more than threefold between 2012 and 2021 — from 22.7% to 71.5%. Still, testing rates varied depending on a range of factors.
• About 22% variability in MMR/MSI testing was attributed to hospital-level variations, with the best vs worst performing hospitals reporting testing rates of 90% vs 2%. This hospital-level variation may be caused by testing protocol differences at individual institutions, the authors said.
• The likelihood of undergoing MMR/MSI testing was lower in patients with stage IV vs stage I disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78) but higher in those with stage II (aOR, 1.53) and III (aOR, 1.40) disease.
• The likelihood of undergoing MMR/MSI testing was slightly lower for men than for women (aOR, 0.98) and for Black patients than for White patients (aOR, 0.97). Having a lower household income, public or no insurance (vs private insurance), or living a longer distance (more than 5 miles) from the treatment facility was also associated with lower odds of testing.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cohort study indicated that MMR/MSI testing increased markedly, suggesting increased NCCN guideline adherence,” the authors said. However, variations still exist by cancer stage, hospital, and patient factors. Implementing “widespread institution-level reflexive testing for every initial diagnostic biopsy” can improve testing rates and reduce disparities, the authors suggested.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Totadri Dhimal, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked clinical granularity, and potential coding inaccuracies and incomplete data could have affected the interpretation and generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding information was provided for the study. One author reported receiving author royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) increased from 22.7% in 2012 to 71.5% in 2021, but variations in access remain, with testing rates differing by cancer stage, individual hospital, patient sex, race, and insurance status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2017, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended universal testing for MMR and MSI among patients with CRC, but studies suggest that testing may still be underused.
• To assess trends and factors associated with MMR/MSI testing in the United States, researchers evaluated 834,797 patients diagnosed with stage I-IV CRC between 2012 and 2021 across 1366 Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the National Cancer Database.
• The variability in MMR/MSI testing was assessed in relation to both patient and hospital-level factors.
• Overall, 70.7% patients had colon cancer, 7.3% had rectosigmoid cancer, and 22.0% had rectal cancer. The median patient age was 66 years; just over half (53%) were men, 81.8% were White, and 11.9% were Black.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 43.9% patients underwent MMR/MSI testing, but testing rates increased more than threefold between 2012 and 2021 — from 22.7% to 71.5%. Still, testing rates varied depending on a range of factors.
• About 22% variability in MMR/MSI testing was attributed to hospital-level variations, with the best vs worst performing hospitals reporting testing rates of 90% vs 2%. This hospital-level variation may be caused by testing protocol differences at individual institutions, the authors said.
• The likelihood of undergoing MMR/MSI testing was lower in patients with stage IV vs stage I disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78) but higher in those with stage II (aOR, 1.53) and III (aOR, 1.40) disease.
• The likelihood of undergoing MMR/MSI testing was slightly lower for men than for women (aOR, 0.98) and for Black patients than for White patients (aOR, 0.97). Having a lower household income, public or no insurance (vs private insurance), or living a longer distance (more than 5 miles) from the treatment facility was also associated with lower odds of testing.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cohort study indicated that MMR/MSI testing increased markedly, suggesting increased NCCN guideline adherence,” the authors said. However, variations still exist by cancer stage, hospital, and patient factors. Implementing “widespread institution-level reflexive testing for every initial diagnostic biopsy” can improve testing rates and reduce disparities, the authors suggested.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Totadri Dhimal, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked clinical granularity, and potential coding inaccuracies and incomplete data could have affected the interpretation and generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding information was provided for the study. One author reported receiving author royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) increased from 22.7% in 2012 to 71.5% in 2021, but variations in access remain, with testing rates differing by cancer stage, individual hospital, patient sex, race, and insurance status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2017, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended universal testing for MMR and MSI among patients with CRC, but studies suggest that testing may still be underused.
• To assess trends and factors associated with MMR/MSI testing in the United States, researchers evaluated 834,797 patients diagnosed with stage I-IV CRC between 2012 and 2021 across 1366 Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the National Cancer Database.
• The variability in MMR/MSI testing was assessed in relation to both patient and hospital-level factors.
• Overall, 70.7% patients had colon cancer, 7.3% had rectosigmoid cancer, and 22.0% had rectal cancer. The median patient age was 66 years; just over half (53%) were men, 81.8% were White, and 11.9% were Black.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 43.9% patients underwent MMR/MSI testing, but testing rates increased more than threefold between 2012 and 2021 — from 22.7% to 71.5%. Still, testing rates varied depending on a range of factors.
• About 22% variability in MMR/MSI testing was attributed to hospital-level variations, with the best vs worst performing hospitals reporting testing rates of 90% vs 2%. This hospital-level variation may be caused by testing protocol differences at individual institutions, the authors said.
• The likelihood of undergoing MMR/MSI testing was lower in patients with stage IV vs stage I disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78) but higher in those with stage II (aOR, 1.53) and III (aOR, 1.40) disease.
• The likelihood of undergoing MMR/MSI testing was slightly lower for men than for women (aOR, 0.98) and for Black patients than for White patients (aOR, 0.97). Having a lower household income, public or no insurance (vs private insurance), or living a longer distance (more than 5 miles) from the treatment facility was also associated with lower odds of testing.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cohort study indicated that MMR/MSI testing increased markedly, suggesting increased NCCN guideline adherence,” the authors said. However, variations still exist by cancer stage, hospital, and patient factors. Implementing “widespread institution-level reflexive testing for every initial diagnostic biopsy” can improve testing rates and reduce disparities, the authors suggested.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Totadri Dhimal, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked clinical granularity, and potential coding inaccuracies and incomplete data could have affected the interpretation and generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding information was provided for the study. One author reported receiving author royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Welcome back, everybody, from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress in the wonderful city of Barcelona in Spain. I was coming from ESMO drenched in huge amounts of new data. 

One of the things I picked up on was a nice mini-symposium on gastrointestinal cancer led by Sara Lonardi, who made an excellent presentation, picking out three abstracts. They looked at molecularly targeted drugs, some early-stage and a later-stage study in which there’s some evidence of promise.

She talked a little about the preliminary results from three trials suggesting some benefits, pretty marginal, of cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients who’d already had epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) receptor inhibitory treatment. 

Amivantamab plus FOLFOX or FOLFIRI was also discussed. This is a bispecific antibody against EGFR and MET. Again, very early, but there are some potential marginal benefits coming through. She also discussed the results of a larger phase 3 randomized trial with an old friend, ramucirumab, the anti-angiogenic agent, in which the ramucirumab in combination with trifluridine-tipiracil failed to meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival.

There were some interesting post hoc subgroup analyses showing potential benefits for women, left-sided tumors, and so on. She made an excellent presentation, which she summarized by saying that the future of colorectal cancer treatment lies in further defining molecularly targeted treatment.

Nobody would disagree with that. What is interesting, though, is that, if I were to use the analogy of mining, the more deeply we mine, perhaps the lower marginal the benefits are becoming. There’s no doubt that we’re understanding better the exquisite machinery of cell signaling. We understand that there’s redundancy, there’s repeatability, and the possibility of emergence of resistance can come quite quickly. 

Although we can develop ever more precise molecularly targeted drugs, it does seem as if the clinical benefits of these, in some cases, are marginally small. I’d like to suggest that, in addition to Sara’s call for more molecularly targeted drugs, we should think about cellular targets. 

We did a large amount of work (as have many others, of course) looking at the immune tumor microenvironment and trying to, in a way, separate and understand the contribution of the individual component cells — of which there are many, including cancer-associated fibroblasts, natural killer (NK) cells, whole hosts of different types of T-cell subsets, B cells, tumor-associated neutrophils, and so on — and how these interact together and of interact with the epithelial colorectal cancer cells. 

We are collaborating with Patrick Soon-Shiong, a clever chap, who believes in combination immunotherapy, dissecting and understanding the individual role of these different cells, and coming up with cellular therapies or targeted therapies that either inhibit or stimulate some of the different cell components to be the way ahead for an immunologically cold tumor such as microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer.

For example, we’re looking at combinations of our histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, which switches on the machinery of antigen presentation, up-regulating major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class 1 and class 2, and some other of the molecules involved in antigen chopping and presentation; it’s like turning a microsatellite-stable immunologically cold tumor hot; an interleukin-15 superagonist that stimulates NK cells; and we’ve found a way to manipulate and reduce the number of Treg cells. 

We have various approaches to reducing the microenvironment transforming growth factor beta and some of the downstream elements from that. We can look at combinatorial immunotherapy, but thinking at a cellular level and developing anticancer agents that either activate or inhibit these different cell components. I’d bring the two together. 

Of course, the future has got to be better molecularly targeted drugs, but let’s think at a macro level as to how we can look at the different cellular interactions within the tumor microenvironment, and perhaps through that, come up with synergistic immunotherapeutic combinations.

Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, both in England. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Welcome back, everybody, from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress in the wonderful city of Barcelona in Spain. I was coming from ESMO drenched in huge amounts of new data. 

One of the things I picked up on was a nice mini-symposium on gastrointestinal cancer led by Sara Lonardi, who made an excellent presentation, picking out three abstracts. They looked at molecularly targeted drugs, some early-stage and a later-stage study in which there’s some evidence of promise.

She talked a little about the preliminary results from three trials suggesting some benefits, pretty marginal, of cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients who’d already had epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) receptor inhibitory treatment. 

Amivantamab plus FOLFOX or FOLFIRI was also discussed. This is a bispecific antibody against EGFR and MET. Again, very early, but there are some potential marginal benefits coming through. She also discussed the results of a larger phase 3 randomized trial with an old friend, ramucirumab, the anti-angiogenic agent, in which the ramucirumab in combination with trifluridine-tipiracil failed to meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival.

There were some interesting post hoc subgroup analyses showing potential benefits for women, left-sided tumors, and so on. She made an excellent presentation, which she summarized by saying that the future of colorectal cancer treatment lies in further defining molecularly targeted treatment.

Nobody would disagree with that. What is interesting, though, is that, if I were to use the analogy of mining, the more deeply we mine, perhaps the lower marginal the benefits are becoming. There’s no doubt that we’re understanding better the exquisite machinery of cell signaling. We understand that there’s redundancy, there’s repeatability, and the possibility of emergence of resistance can come quite quickly. 

Although we can develop ever more precise molecularly targeted drugs, it does seem as if the clinical benefits of these, in some cases, are marginally small. I’d like to suggest that, in addition to Sara’s call for more molecularly targeted drugs, we should think about cellular targets. 

We did a large amount of work (as have many others, of course) looking at the immune tumor microenvironment and trying to, in a way, separate and understand the contribution of the individual component cells — of which there are many, including cancer-associated fibroblasts, natural killer (NK) cells, whole hosts of different types of T-cell subsets, B cells, tumor-associated neutrophils, and so on — and how these interact together and of interact with the epithelial colorectal cancer cells. 

We are collaborating with Patrick Soon-Shiong, a clever chap, who believes in combination immunotherapy, dissecting and understanding the individual role of these different cells, and coming up with cellular therapies or targeted therapies that either inhibit or stimulate some of the different cell components to be the way ahead for an immunologically cold tumor such as microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer.

For example, we’re looking at combinations of our histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, which switches on the machinery of antigen presentation, up-regulating major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class 1 and class 2, and some other of the molecules involved in antigen chopping and presentation; it’s like turning a microsatellite-stable immunologically cold tumor hot; an interleukin-15 superagonist that stimulates NK cells; and we’ve found a way to manipulate and reduce the number of Treg cells. 

We have various approaches to reducing the microenvironment transforming growth factor beta and some of the downstream elements from that. We can look at combinatorial immunotherapy, but thinking at a cellular level and developing anticancer agents that either activate or inhibit these different cell components. I’d bring the two together. 

Of course, the future has got to be better molecularly targeted drugs, but let’s think at a macro level as to how we can look at the different cellular interactions within the tumor microenvironment, and perhaps through that, come up with synergistic immunotherapeutic combinations.

Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, both in England. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Welcome back, everybody, from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress in the wonderful city of Barcelona in Spain. I was coming from ESMO drenched in huge amounts of new data. 

One of the things I picked up on was a nice mini-symposium on gastrointestinal cancer led by Sara Lonardi, who made an excellent presentation, picking out three abstracts. They looked at molecularly targeted drugs, some early-stage and a later-stage study in which there’s some evidence of promise.

She talked a little about the preliminary results from three trials suggesting some benefits, pretty marginal, of cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients who’d already had epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) receptor inhibitory treatment. 

Amivantamab plus FOLFOX or FOLFIRI was also discussed. This is a bispecific antibody against EGFR and MET. Again, very early, but there are some potential marginal benefits coming through. She also discussed the results of a larger phase 3 randomized trial with an old friend, ramucirumab, the anti-angiogenic agent, in which the ramucirumab in combination with trifluridine-tipiracil failed to meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival.

There were some interesting post hoc subgroup analyses showing potential benefits for women, left-sided tumors, and so on. She made an excellent presentation, which she summarized by saying that the future of colorectal cancer treatment lies in further defining molecularly targeted treatment.

Nobody would disagree with that. What is interesting, though, is that, if I were to use the analogy of mining, the more deeply we mine, perhaps the lower marginal the benefits are becoming. There’s no doubt that we’re understanding better the exquisite machinery of cell signaling. We understand that there’s redundancy, there’s repeatability, and the possibility of emergence of resistance can come quite quickly. 

Although we can develop ever more precise molecularly targeted drugs, it does seem as if the clinical benefits of these, in some cases, are marginally small. I’d like to suggest that, in addition to Sara’s call for more molecularly targeted drugs, we should think about cellular targets. 

We did a large amount of work (as have many others, of course) looking at the immune tumor microenvironment and trying to, in a way, separate and understand the contribution of the individual component cells — of which there are many, including cancer-associated fibroblasts, natural killer (NK) cells, whole hosts of different types of T-cell subsets, B cells, tumor-associated neutrophils, and so on — and how these interact together and of interact with the epithelial colorectal cancer cells. 

We are collaborating with Patrick Soon-Shiong, a clever chap, who believes in combination immunotherapy, dissecting and understanding the individual role of these different cells, and coming up with cellular therapies or targeted therapies that either inhibit or stimulate some of the different cell components to be the way ahead for an immunologically cold tumor such as microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer.

For example, we’re looking at combinations of our histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, which switches on the machinery of antigen presentation, up-regulating major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class 1 and class 2, and some other of the molecules involved in antigen chopping and presentation; it’s like turning a microsatellite-stable immunologically cold tumor hot; an interleukin-15 superagonist that stimulates NK cells; and we’ve found a way to manipulate and reduce the number of Treg cells. 

We have various approaches to reducing the microenvironment transforming growth factor beta and some of the downstream elements from that. We can look at combinatorial immunotherapy, but thinking at a cellular level and developing anticancer agents that either activate or inhibit these different cell components. I’d bring the two together. 

Of course, the future has got to be better molecularly targeted drugs, but let’s think at a macro level as to how we can look at the different cellular interactions within the tumor microenvironment, and perhaps through that, come up with synergistic immunotherapeutic combinations.

Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, both in England. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

TOPLINE:

Physician training in shared decision-making does not increase the proportion of older adults who receive their preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approach, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent guidelines recommend that shared decision-making be employed when considering whether to stop or continue with CRC screening in adults older than 75 years of age.
• The impact of shared decision-making training on CRC decisions was assessed in 59 physicians and 449 patients (mean age, 80 years) across 36 primary care clinics in Massachusetts and Maine.
• Physicians received shared decision-making training plus pre-visit electronic reminders to discuss CRC screening (intervention) or only the reminders (comparator).
• Shared decision-making training focused on three options: stopping screening, switching to less invasive stool-based testing, and continuing colonoscopy.
• The primary outcome was concordance between patients’ preferred screening method and the screening they actually received, assessed over 12 months through surveys and electronic health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Stool-based tests were preferred by 35% of patients, colonoscopy by 25%, and no further screening by 21%, whereas 16% were unsure and 4% did not provide a clear preference and were excluded.
• One year after the index visit, 39% of intervention patients and 29% of comparator patients completed CRC screening, a nonsignificant difference. 
• Approximately 51% of patients in the intervention group received their preferred screening approach, as did 46% in the comparator group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .47). 
• Two subgroups in the intervention group were significantly more likely to receive their desired screening: patients with a strong intention to follow through with their preferred approach and those who had longer discussions (5+ minutes) with their physicians about CRC screening.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the [shared decision-making] training intervention did not make a statistically significant improvement in concordance in this sample, future work to refine and evaluate clinical decision support (in the form of an electronic advisory or reminder), as well as focused [shared decision-making] skills training for [primary care physicians], may promote high-quality, preference-concordant decisions about CRC testing for older adults,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Karen R. Sepucha, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may have been underpowered to detect small differences in concordance rates. The limited racial and ethnic diversity and the high education level of the population restrict the generalizability of these results. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the ability of patients to follow through with CRC screening, potentially biasing the results.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Several authors reported receiving grants from PCORI and other organizations.

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

TOPLINE:

Physician training in shared decision-making does not increase the proportion of older adults who receive their preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approach, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent guidelines recommend that shared decision-making be employed when considering whether to stop or continue with CRC screening in adults older than 75 years of age.
• The impact of shared decision-making training on CRC decisions was assessed in 59 physicians and 449 patients (mean age, 80 years) across 36 primary care clinics in Massachusetts and Maine.
• Physicians received shared decision-making training plus pre-visit electronic reminders to discuss CRC screening (intervention) or only the reminders (comparator).
• Shared decision-making training focused on three options: stopping screening, switching to less invasive stool-based testing, and continuing colonoscopy.
• The primary outcome was concordance between patients’ preferred screening method and the screening they actually received, assessed over 12 months through surveys and electronic health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Stool-based tests were preferred by 35% of patients, colonoscopy by 25%, and no further screening by 21%, whereas 16% were unsure and 4% did not provide a clear preference and were excluded.
• One year after the index visit, 39% of intervention patients and 29% of comparator patients completed CRC screening, a nonsignificant difference. 
• Approximately 51% of patients in the intervention group received their preferred screening approach, as did 46% in the comparator group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .47). 
• Two subgroups in the intervention group were significantly more likely to receive their desired screening: patients with a strong intention to follow through with their preferred approach and those who had longer discussions (5+ minutes) with their physicians about CRC screening.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the [shared decision-making] training intervention did not make a statistically significant improvement in concordance in this sample, future work to refine and evaluate clinical decision support (in the form of an electronic advisory or reminder), as well as focused [shared decision-making] skills training for [primary care physicians], may promote high-quality, preference-concordant decisions about CRC testing for older adults,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Karen R. Sepucha, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may have been underpowered to detect small differences in concordance rates. The limited racial and ethnic diversity and the high education level of the population restrict the generalizability of these results. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the ability of patients to follow through with CRC screening, potentially biasing the results.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Several authors reported receiving grants from PCORI and other organizations.

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

TOPLINE:

Physician training in shared decision-making does not increase the proportion of older adults who receive their preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approach, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent guidelines recommend that shared decision-making be employed when considering whether to stop or continue with CRC screening in adults older than 75 years of age.
• The impact of shared decision-making training on CRC decisions was assessed in 59 physicians and 449 patients (mean age, 80 years) across 36 primary care clinics in Massachusetts and Maine.
• Physicians received shared decision-making training plus pre-visit electronic reminders to discuss CRC screening (intervention) or only the reminders (comparator).
• Shared decision-making training focused on three options: stopping screening, switching to less invasive stool-based testing, and continuing colonoscopy.
• The primary outcome was concordance between patients’ preferred screening method and the screening they actually received, assessed over 12 months through surveys and electronic health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Stool-based tests were preferred by 35% of patients, colonoscopy by 25%, and no further screening by 21%, whereas 16% were unsure and 4% did not provide a clear preference and were excluded.
• One year after the index visit, 39% of intervention patients and 29% of comparator patients completed CRC screening, a nonsignificant difference. 
• Approximately 51% of patients in the intervention group received their preferred screening approach, as did 46% in the comparator group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .47). 
• Two subgroups in the intervention group were significantly more likely to receive their desired screening: patients with a strong intention to follow through with their preferred approach and those who had longer discussions (5+ minutes) with their physicians about CRC screening.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the [shared decision-making] training intervention did not make a statistically significant improvement in concordance in this sample, future work to refine and evaluate clinical decision support (in the form of an electronic advisory or reminder), as well as focused [shared decision-making] skills training for [primary care physicians], may promote high-quality, preference-concordant decisions about CRC testing for older adults,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Karen R. Sepucha, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may have been underpowered to detect small differences in concordance rates. The limited racial and ethnic diversity and the high education level of the population restrict the generalizability of these results. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the ability of patients to follow through with CRC screening, potentially biasing the results.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Several authors reported receiving grants from PCORI and other organizations.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not report any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not report any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not report any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing Poor Prep

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

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

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

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

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

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

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

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

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

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

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

Reducing Environmental Effects

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

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

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

AI for Quality And Efficiency

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

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

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

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Addressing Poor Prep

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

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

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

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

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

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

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

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

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

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

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

Reducing Environmental Effects

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

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

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

AI for Quality And Efficiency

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

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

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

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Addressing Poor Prep

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

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

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

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

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

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

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

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

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

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

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

Reducing Environmental Effects

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

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

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

AI for Quality And Efficiency

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

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

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

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Wide Variation Found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Jaw-Dropping’ Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Wide Variation Found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Jaw-Dropping’ Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Wide Variation Found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Jaw-Dropping’ Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.