Upload
bruce-james
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tailoring Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Risk
Thomas F. Imperiale, MD
Indiana University Medical Center
6th Annual Cancer Care Engineering Retreat
May 27, 2011
Colorectal Cancer
3rd most prevalent cancer in the U.S.
150,000 new cases per year
55,000 deaths per year – 3rd most common cause of cancer-death– 2nd among non-smokers
Screening is effective in reducing morbidity and mortality
How best to screen is unclear
Where is the colon?
Until 2008 - Recommended Screening Tests and
Intervals for Average-Risk Persons
ACG ACS USPSTF GI Consort
Year of Rec. 2000 2001 2002 2003
3-sample FOBT Annual Annual Annual Annual
Sigmoidoscopy Q5Y Q5Y Q5Y Q5Y
FOBT & Sig Q1,5Y Q1,5Y Q1,5Y Q1,5Y
DCBE Q5Y Q5Y Q5Y Q5Y
Colonoscopy Q10Y Q10Y Q10Y Q10Y
(“preferred”)
Screening Tests and Intervals: 2009
TestACS/
MSTFACR USPSTF ACGReimbursem
entHemoccult II NR Annually NR Yes
HS-FOBT/FIT Annually Annually Annually Yes
Sigmoidoscopy Q 5 y Q 5 y (suboptimal)
Q 5-10 y Yes(suboptimal)
FOBT & Sig Q 1, 5 y Mid-interval, Q 5 y
Q 1, 5-10 y
Yes
DCBE Q 5 y NR NR Yes
Fecal DNA Yes, ? Interval
NR Q 3 y +/-
CTC Q 5 y NR Q 5 y Mostly not
Colonoscopy Q 10 y Q 10 Y Q 10 Y Yes
Micro-simulation (MISCAN) Model of CRC
Ages 50-75Test, Interval
Outcomes per 1000 Persons________ CY Non-CY Tests LYG Mortality
CY, 10 4136 0 230 65%
HOS, 1 3350 9541 230 66%
FIT, 1 2949 11773 227 65%
HO II, 1 1982 16232 194 55%
FSIG, 5 1911 4139 203 59%
FSIG + HOS; 5,3 2970 5822 230 66%
Simulation Model of CRC (SimCRC)Ages 50-75Test, Interval
Outcomes per 1000 Persons . CY Non-CY Tests LYG Mortality
CY, 10 3756 0 271 84%
HOS, 1 2654 9573 259 81%
FIT, 1 2295 11830 256 80%
HO II, 1 1456 16239 218 69%
FSIG, 5 995 4483 199 62%
FSIG + HOS;
5,31655 11623 257 79%
Sigmoidoscopy: Case-control studies
Odds Ratio (95% CI)
1st Author, Year
StudyN
OutcomeN
DistalColon
Proximal Colon
Selby, 1992 1129Mortality
2610.41
(0.25-0.69)0.96
(0.61-1.51)
Newcomb, 1992
262Mortality
660.05
(0.01-0.43)0.36
(0.11-1.20)
Newcomb, 2003
2992Incidence
16680.24
(0.17-0.33)0.89
(0.68-1.16)
Results of Flex Sig TrialsNORCCAP U.K. SCORE
N 55,736 170,432 34,292
Mean follow up 6, 7 yrs 11.2 yrs 10.5, 11.4 yrs
Mortality
-ITT 27% NS 31% 22% NS
-per protocol 59% overall76% distal
43% overall 38% overall52% distal
Incidence
-ITT 23% overall36% distal
18% overall24% distal
-per protocol 27% distal (NS)
33% overall50% distal
31% overall40% distal
Colonoscopy
No RCTs (in progress)
Indirect evidence– Mechanism of incidence / mortality reduction
with FOBT– Sigmoidoscopy works, so….
Cohort studies (observed vs. expected)
Case-control studies
Winawer SJ et al. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977-1981
Cumulative Incidence of CRC in the NPS Cohort.
Colonoscopy and CRC
Risk Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)
1st author, yrStudy design
StudyN
Outcome N
Overall Distal Proximal
Baxter, ’09, CCS
61752 Mortality 10292
0.63(0.57-0.69)
0.33(0.28-0.39)
0.99(0.86-1.14)
Brenner, ’10, CCS
3287 Incidence214
0.52(0.37-0.73)
0.33(0.21-0.53)
1.05(0.63-1.76)
Singh, ’10, Cohort
45985 Incidence300
Men: 0.59(0.50-0.70)
0.44(0.34-0.57)
0.88(0.69-1.12)
Incidence2524
Women: 0.71
(0.61-0.83)
0.44(0.33-0.58)
0.99(0.82-1.19)
Brenner, ’11, CCS
2622 Incidence1688
0.23(0.19-0.27)
0.16(0.12-0.20)
0.44 (0.35-0.55)
Questions to Consider
Can use of screening colonoscopy be made more efficient?
Can CRC screening – in general – be made more efficient?
Can concepts of risk improve efficiency?
“Efficient” (def) – productive of results with a minimum of wasted effort.
“…..the millions who undergo screening for no apparent gain – the denominator – (who) are subject to the harms that could cumulatively outweigh the benefits to the smaller group in the numerator.”
Woolf SH. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1641-3
Neoplasia Prevalence - Screening
First au, year
Study N Mean age, yr
Non-advanced neoplasia
Advanced neoplasia
Adeno-CA
Morikawa2005
21,805 48.2 16% 4.9% 0.1%
Lin, 2006 1,244 56.2 12.1% 4.4% 0.2%
Regula, 2006
43,032 NA 8.9% 5.9% 0.9%
Strul, 2006
994 47 15.6% 7.2% 1.3%
Kim, 2007 4,491 53 17.9% 3.4% 0%
Tailoring CRC Screening
Intensity of screening (and surveillance) is suited to a person’s risk
Requires knowing about risk
Currently done for “high-risk” groups– FAP & HNPCC– Strong family history of CRC– IBD
Can tailoring be extended to “average-risk” persons?
Outcomes to Target for CRC Screening
CRC mortality
CRC incidence
Advanced neoplasia
NOT just any adenoma
Risk stratification could affect screening decisions
Risk stratification – a system or process by which clinically-
meaningful separation of risk is achieved in a group of
otherwise similar persons.
For high-risk (or not low-risk) persons
– Education about need for screening
– Suggestion that aggressive screening is indicated
For low-risk persons
– Defer screening until no longer low-risk
– Screen less aggressively (? non-invasively).
Risk Factors for CRC:What we use vs. what we “know”
What we use
Age – 50 is the threshold
Family history - > 1 FDR with CRC / AP
– When to begin
– How to screen
What we know: CRC risk factors
Strong risk factors (RR > 4.0)
– Age
Moderate risk factors (RR = 2.1 – 4.0)
– High red meat diet
– Pelvic irradiation – after 15 years
– Waist-to-hip ratio > 0.99 vs. < 0.90, > 0.90 vs. < 0.81
– Waist circumference (> 43” vs. < 35”)
Modest Risk Factors(RR = 1.1 – 2.0)
High fat diet
Alcohol – daily use, > 5 beers / week
Cigarette smoking: > 20 years, remote use
Obesity – BMI
Tall stature: > 73” vs. < 68”
Cholecystectomy
Weight gain of > 40 lbs since age 21
Male gender
Modest Protective Factors(RR = 0.9 – 0.6)
High fruit / vegetable diet
High fiber diet
High folate intake
High calcium intake
Post-menopausal HRT – any use, > 5yr,
current use
Moderate Protective Factors(RR < 0.6)
High physical activity– Decreases transit time– Highest vs. lowest quintiles of MET-hr/wk
score
Aspirin / NSAIDs– Inhibition of COX-2 (?)– > 2 times per week– Duration; > 10 – 20 years (NHS) - ? 5 years
Advanced neoplasia
Factor PAF (95% CI)
Male gender (50%)
23% (9-36%)
Current smoking(10%)
9% (-2 to 20%)
FDR with CRC (12%) 4% (-1 to 8%)
• Male gender and smoking have a larger impact on the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia than family history• Suggests CRC-based risk stratification based on gender and smoking status.
Hoffmeister M, et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol 2010; 8: 870-6
Risk factor Category Points
Age (years) 50-54 0
55-59 1
60-64 2
> 65 3
Gender Women 0
Men 1
Distal finding No polyps 0
Hyperplastic polyps 1
> 1 tubular adenoma < 1 cm 2
Advanced neoplasia 3
A risk index previously developed
• Age, gender, and distal colorectal findings used to stratify risk for advanced proximal neoplasia (APN)
Scores ranged from 0 to 7
Imperiale, et al. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:959-65
Where is the colon?
Previous Risk Index for APN
Risk Group(Score)
N % of total N
Risk of APN (%)(95% CI)
Low (0, 1)
1222 (40) 0.82 (0.39-1.50)
Intermediate(2, 3)
1221 (40) 2.05 (1.33-3.01)
High(4-7)
582 (20) 8.59 (6.44-11.2)
Application to Clinical PracticeColonoscopy for APN
DetectedN (%)
Persons having colonoscopy
N (%)
Number needed
to screen
Any distal polyp 41 (49) 641 (21) 27
Any distal neoplasm
32 (39) 341 (11) 11
All 83 (100) 3,025 (100) 36
Intermediate & high risk 76 (92) 1,808 (60) 24
Imperiale TF, et al. Ann Intern Med 2003
External Validation of the IndexOriginal
Validation Group
Caucasian African-American
Hispanic
N 1031 1481 1329 689
Prevalence of APN - % (CI)
1.5% (0.8-2.4%)
2.4% (1.7-3.3%)
2.1% (1.4-3.0%)
1.5%(0.8-2.4%)
Low-risk 0.4% (0.1-1.5%)
1.0% 1.0% 0.6%
Intermediate risk
1.9% (0.8-3.8%)
2.8% (1.0-7.6%)
2.2% (0.8-6.2%)
1.9% (0.6-15.9%)
High-risk 3.8% (1.2-8.6%)
3.8%(1.3-10.6%)
4.2% (1.4-12.7%)
3.7% (1.1-34%)
% APN in low-risk group
13% 17% 18% 18%aROC 0.74
(0.62-0.84)0.62
(0.54-0.70)0.63
(0.54-0.73)0.68
(0.53-0.82)
Lin O. Am J Gastroenterol 2011 (in press)
A predictive model for advanced adenoma
• 2210 persons > 40 years – screening CY• Logistic model risk score ROC curve• 617 (28%) had neoplasia
– 259 (11.7%) had adv adenoma; 11 CRC• Variables –
– Age: 0 to 4 by decade– Sex: 0 for women, 2 for men– BMI: 0 for < 25 kg/m2 to 2 for > 35 kg/m2
Betés M, et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:2648-54
Yield of Colonoscopy for advanced adenomaaROC=0.67
Score n/N (%) NNS
0 0/41 (0) ---
1 1/117(1) 14
2 4/201 (2) 13
3 20/408 (5) 12
4 45/487 (9) 10
5 37/359 (10) 8.7
6 11/71 (15) 6.0
7 2/6 (33) 3.0
Limitations
• Potential for selection bias
– 11 years to achieve N
– Medium-to-high SES
– Motivated to screening CY
• Model and score not validated
• No information about location (proximal / distal)
by score
Models for Future Risk of CRC
• Physicians’ Health Study – 21,851 U.S. Physicians, ages 40-84 years– 20-year follow-up ….. 485 cases of CRC
• Independent predictors– Age (by decade) -- Alcohol use (> 1/wk)– Smoking hx (yes/no) -- BMI (< 25, 25-9, > 30)
• Odds ratios rounded risk score - range, 0-10• Risk categories – low (0-3), intermediate (4-6),
high (7-10)
Driver JA, et al. Am J Med 2007; 120:257-63
20-year risk of CRC by score# Points # (%)
PatientsOdds Ratio (95%
CI) for CRC20-year cumulative
Risk of CRC0 977 (5) 1.00 (reference) 0.6%
1 3090 (14) 1.48 (0.61-3.59) 0.9%
2 3981 (18) 1.52 (0.64-3.61) 0.9%
3 3422 (16) 2.25 (0.96-5.29) 1.4%
4 3356 (16) 3.70 (1.61-3.82) 2.2%
5 2656 (12) 5.35 (2.33-12.29) 3.2%
6 1953 (9) 7.46 (3.25-17.12) 4.4%
7 1268 (6) 7.76 (3.33-18.05) 4.6%
8 600 (3) 11.25 (4.73-26.74) 6.5%
9-10 278 (1) 15.29 (6.19-37.81) 8.6%
Driver JA, et al. Am J Med 2007; 120:257-63
Performance of the 3 Risk Groups
Risk Group
N (%) Patients
Predicted CRC
Observed CRC
OR (CI) of CRC
Obs. 20-year risk of CRC
Low(0-3 pts)
11470 (53%)
121 118 1.0 1%
Intermed(4-6 pts)
7965(37%)
238 246 3.07(2.5-3.8)
3%
High(7-10 pts)
2146(10%)
126 121 5.75(4.4-7.4)
6%
Limitations
• No information on FHx, prior screening, others• Not validated • Uncertain generalizability• Estimated future (vs. current) risk• High-risk group is about “average” risk (6%)• Better for estimating relative, not absolute, risk• CRC, not advanced neoplasia, is the outcome
– Is this acceptable?
Absolute Risk Projection Model for CRC
• Derived from 2 population-based CCSs involving persons > 50 years
• Combined ORs & ARs from 2 CCSs with SEER data on age-specific CRC incidence to estimate CRC risk over 5, 10, & 20 years
• Identified independent RFs• Developed questionnaire and web-based
version – www.cancer.gov/colorectalcancerrisk• 1st absolute risk model for CRC
Freedman AN, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 686-93
Factors
• Cancer-negative sig/colonoscopy < 10 years• Polyp history during previous 10 years• CRC in first-degree relative• Regular aspirin and NSAID use• Cigarette smoking• BMI• Current leisure-time vigorous activity• Vegetable consumption• Hormone-replacement therapy (HRT)
Model validation
• NIH-AARP diet and health study cohort• 567,169 persons 50-71 years completed self-
administered questionnaire• Comparison of expected vs. observed CRC• 7 years of follow-up 2,924 cases of CRC• Expected / observed ratios:
– 0.99 (CI, 0.95-1.04) for men– 1.05 (CI, 0.98-1.11) for women
• aROCs – 0.61 for both men and women• Calibrated vs. validated; limited to Caucasians
Park Y, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 694-8
R-01 CA 1044590• 5-year grant from NCI – funded in 2004• Goal – quantify risk for advanced
neoplasia, tailor CRC screening according to risk
• Specific aims– Create a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for
advanced neoplasia anywhere in the large intestine
– Create a CPR for advanced proximal neoplasia
– Establish a blood-based biorepository
NCI study
• Multi-site, cross-sectional study• Persons 50-80 years old having their first
screening colonoscopy– Eli Lilly and Marathon Oil – several sites– IGH, MMCH, Wishard, VA
• Questionnaires, physical measures, blood• Recruitment goal: 5-6K ; 420 advanced
neoplasia• For repository only – patients with CRC
– Surgery, oncology clinics
Current status through 4/30/11
• Specific aim 3 – completed 9/30/09– 2,058 unique subjects– 1,102 - no polyps; 281 – hyperplastic only– 394 – non-adv adenomas– 92 – advanced adenomas– 5 - screen-detected adenocarcinomas– 189 subjects with known CRC
• 123 enrolled pre-operatively• 62 post-op, 4 unknown
– Draw-to-freezer time < 6 hr for > 95%
Questionnaire part
• 4,493 subjects enrolled though 4/30/11• 2,732 (61%) normal findings• 556 (12%) with hyperplastic polyps• 867 (19%) with non-advanced adenomas• 338 (8%) with advanced neoplasia
– 17 with screen-detected CRC
Staff and Collaborators• Project Manager – Curlie Morrow• Research assistants
– Mungai Maina– Maria Cruz
• Biostatistics– Janetta Matsen – Data manager– Rebeka Tabbey – masters biostatistician– Menggang Yu, PhD –
• Collaborators – – Betsy Glowinski – IGRF– Kris Courtney, MD – Lilly – Brian Linder, MD – Marathon– David Ransohoff, MD - UNC
Thanks to…..• Oncology clinic
– Gabi Chiorean, M.D.– Paul Helft, M.D., M.P.H.– Pat Loehrer, M.D.
• Surgery clinic– Vermilio George, M.D.– Bruce Robb, M.D.– Eric Wiebke, M.D.
• Other funding sources– CTSI– Walther Foundation– IUCC and DoD grant
Yield of colonoscopy in veterans – VA funded-study – HSR&D
Objectives – – Measure, compare yield of 1st-time VA
colonoscopy for advanced neoplasia within pre-specified demographic groups
– Quantify yield by indication– Explore associations between demographic
and clinical features …and risk for CIN
Methods– 18-site, cross-sectional study of findings on
1st-time colonoscopy, ages 40-80– Remote data extraction, NLP
Results to date
IRB approval – 18 sites
Indianapolis VA data “remotely” extracted– Software “finalized” (N=198)– 92% sensitivity; 87% specificity– Reasons for misses: coding errors, h/o polyps
17 remote sites extracted 8/10 - 10/10– Independent, remote EMR review by RA– 3 samples of 60 unique records per site
ResultsExtraction software test characteristics @ Indy VA– Sensitivity = 92%– Specificity = 87%
Total N from 18 sites = 258,743
1st exclusion = 46,649 (18%; range: 9-47%)
1st inclusion = 212,094
Software performance at external sites (n=587)– 12.4% falsely excluded (no CPT code in EMR)– 15.7% falsely included (h/o polyps; prior CY)– 32.7% properly excluded– 40.2% properly included
Estimated final N = 85,000 (4,250 women)
Staff and Collaborators
• Project manager – Brian Brake• Research assistants – Jason Larson,
Maria Cruz• Data Management
– Kathy Smith - Tenesha Pennington• Biostats – Xiaochun Li, PhD• IT – Jon Cardwell, Leonard Aloi• Collaborators – Jeff Friedlin, Charles Kahi,
17 other site investigators
Conclusion
• CRC screening is effective and cost-effective, but screening the entire population with colonoscopy is not feasible, costly, may be unnecessary.
• Tailoring CRC screening based on risk, would make screening more efficient and might engage persons previously unscreened.
Thank you!
A risk index for advanced neoplasia
Retrospective cross-sectional study of 3005 persons >= 50 years – screening CY– Derivation subgroup of 1512– Validation subgroup of 1493
Age (0-3), sex (0, 1), FHx CRC (0-2) = 0-6
Compared 3 strategies– CY for all– CTC for all– CTC for low-risk (scores of 0, 1); CY for rest
Lin O, et al. Gastroenterol 2006; 131: 1011-9
ResultsUniversal
CTCUniversal
CYIndex-based
screening
# CTCs 3005 0 1146
# Colonoscopies 405 3005 1985
Total # procedures 3410 3005 3131
Both procedures 405 (13%) 0 126 (4%)
% advanced neoplasia detected
70% 94% 91%
Limitations- CTC not widely available / reimbursed- Cost and effects of radiation, incidental findings not considered