Explore the vast range of titles available.

Key Points Pooled analyses of prospective trials have demonstrated an overall survival benefit of intensive postoperative surveillance in patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer (CRC); however, individual studies used highly heterogeneous surveillance schemes The overall survival benefit of intensive surveillance is only partly due to improved cancer-specific survival; other contributing factors include the treatment of comorbidities owing to frequent contact with medical professionals For patients with stage I–III CRC, no optimal diagnostic tool or frequency of patient visits has been established; regular follow-up assessment by a clinician seem to be the most-important factor Colonoscopies are generally performed at 6, 30 and 60 months after curative treatment of patients with stage I–III CRC; performing additional colonoscopies does not improve overall survival Limited evidence is available regarding surveillance after endoscopic resection of early neoplasia, and after organ-sparing treatment for rectal cancer; prospective randomized trials are needed Similarly, a lack of evidence exists on the effectiveness of surveillance after treatment of patients with stage IV CRC with curative intent, and thus randomized trials are also needed to address this issue After curative treatment, 30% of patients with stage I–III and up to 65% of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) develop recurrent disease. Thus, surveillance for disease recurrence is clearly needed in these patients, but controversy surrounds the optimal follow-up approaches. Herein, the current evidence relating to surveillance strategies for patients with CRC is comprehensively reviewed, and the future development of patient-centred programmes is discussed. Treatments for colorectal cancer (CRC) of all stages have evolved considerably over the past two decades, resulting in improved long-term outcomes. After curative treatment, however, 30% of patients with stage I–III and up to 65% of patients with stage IV CRC develop recurrent disease. Thus, patients are routinely offered surveillance in order to detect disease recurrence at an early, asymptomatic stage, with the intention of improving survival. Nevertheless, controversy continues to surround the optimal surveillance protocols. For patients with stage I–III CRC, more-intensive surveillance improves overall survival compared with less-intensive or no surveillance, probably owing to improved outcomes after cancer recurrence, as well as proactive treatment of other conditions detected opportunistically. The benefit of surveillance after curative treatment of stage IV CRC is more controversial, but might be justified because repeat resection can improve overall survival and 20% of these patients are eligible for such treatment with curative intent. No trials have assessed the optimal follow-up approach after curative resection of metastatic CRC, and similarly to surveillance of patients with stage I–III disease, most programmes are more intensive during the first 3 years than at later time points. Herein, we provide a comprehensive overview of surveillance strategies for patients with CRC, and discuss the future development of patient-centred programmes.

In the past decades the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in people under the age of 50 years has increased, which is referred to as early-onset CRC or young-onset CRC (YO-CRC). YO-CRC is expected to account for 11% of colon cancers and 23% of rectal cancers by 2030. This trend is observed in different parts of the world and in both men and women. In 20% of patients with YO-CRC, a hereditary cancer syndrome is found as the underlying cause; however, in the majority of patients no genetic predisposition is present. Beginning in the 1950s, major changes in lifestyle such as antibiotic use, low physical activity and obesity have affected the gut microbiome and may be an important factor in YO-CRC development. Owing to a lack of screening, patients with YO-CRC are often diagnosed with advanced-stage disease. Long-term treatment-related complications should be taken into account in these younger patients, making the more traditional sequential approaches of drug therapy not always the most appropriate option. To better understand the underlying mechanism and define relationships between environmental factors and YO-CRC development, long-term prospective studies are needed with lifestyle data collected from childhood.Young-onset colorectal cancer occurs in individuals younger than 50 years and is increasing in incidence worldwide. This Primer provides an overview of the epidemiology, diagnosis, screening, prevention, pathophysiology and management of this cancer and its impact on patient quality of life.

ObjectiveThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) declines among subjects aged 50 years and above. An opposite trend appears among younger adults. In Europe, data on CRC incidence among younger adults are lacking. We therefore aimed to analyse European trends in CRC incidence and mortality in subjects younger than 50 years.DesignData on age-related CRC incidence and mortality between 1990 and 2016 were retrieved from national and regional cancer registries. Trends were analysed by Joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent change.ResultsWe retrieved data on 143.7 million people aged 20–49 years from 20 European countries. Of them, 187 918 (0.13%) were diagnosed with CRC. On average, CRC incidence increased with 7.9% per year among subjects aged 20–29 years from 2004 to 2016. The increase in the age group of 30–39 years was 4.9% per year from 2005 to 2016, the increase in the age group of 40–49 years was 1.6% per year from 2004 to 2016. This increase started earliest in subjects aged 20–29 years, and 10–20 years later in those aged 30–39 and 40–49 years. This is consistent with an age-cohort phenomenon. Although in most European countries the CRC incidence had risen, some heterogeneity was found between countries. CRC mortality did not significantly change among the youngest adults, but decreased with 1.1%per year between 1990 and 2016 and 2.4% per year between 1990 and 2009 among those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years, respectively.ConclusionCRC incidence rises among young adults in Europe. The cause for this trend needs to be elucidated. Clinicians should be aware of this trend. If the trend continues, screening guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

CRC mortality rates are higher for individuals with a lower socioeconomic status (SES). Screening could influence health inequalities. We therefore aimed to investigate SES differences in participation and diagnostic yield of FIT screening. All invitees in 2014 and 2015 in the Dutch national CRC screening programme were included in the analyses. We used area SES as a measure for SES and divided invitees into quintiles, with Quintile 1 being the highest SES. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the participation rate, positivity rate, colonoscopy uptake, positive predictive value (PPV) and detection rate across the SES groups. Participation to FIT screening was significantly lower for Quintile 5 (67.0%) compared to the other Quintiles (73.0% to 75.1%; adjusted OR quintile 5 versus quintile 1: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.72-0.74), as well as colonoscopy uptake after a positive FIT (adjusted OR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.69-0.77). The detection rate per FIT participant for advanced neoplasia gradually increased from 3.3% in Quintile 1 to 4.0% in Quintile 5 (adjusted OR 1.20%, 95%CI 1.16-1.24). As a result of lower participation, the yield per invitee was similar for Quintile 5 (2.04%) and Quintile 1 (2.00%), both being lower than Quintiles 2 to 4 (2.20%-2.28%). Screening has the potential to reduce health inequalities in CRC mortality, because of a higher detection in participants with a lower SES. However, in the Dutch screening programme, this is currently offset by the lower participation in this group.

In this randomized trial involving 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those assigned to no screening.

Background The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The last patient with a clinically complete response is expected to be included in May 2021. The purpose of this update is to present all amendments to the SANO trial protocol as approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) before accrual is completed. Design The SANO trial protocol has been published ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4034-1 ). In this ongoing, phase-III, non-inferiority, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial, patients with cCR (i.e. after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy no evidence of residual disease in two consecutive clinical response evaluations [CREs]) undergo either active surveillance or standard oesophagectomy. In the active surveillance arm, CREs are repeated every 3 months in the first year, every 4 months in the second year, every 6 months in the third year, and yearly in the fourth and fifth year. In this arm, oesophagectomy is offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant metastases. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Update Amendments to the study design involve the first cluster in the stepped-wedge design being partially randomised as well and continued accrual of patients at baseline until the predetermined number of patients with cCR is reached. Eligibility criteria have been amended, stating that patients who underwent endoscopic treatment prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy cannot be included and that patients who have highly suspected residual tumour without histological proof can be included. Amendments to the study procedures include that patients proceed to the second CRE if at the first CRE the outcome of the pathological assessment is uncertain and that patients with a non-passable stenosis at endoscopy are not considered cCR. The sample size was recalculated following new insights on response rates (34% instead of 50%) and survival (expected 2-year overall survival of 75% calculated from the moment of reaching cCR instead of 3-year overall survival of 67% calculated from diagnosis). This reduced the number of required patients with cCR from 264 to 224, but increased the required inclusions from 480 to approximately 740 patients at baseline. Conclusion Substantial amendments were made prior to closure of enrolment of the SANO trial. These amendments do not affect the outcomes of the trial compared to the original protocol. The first results are expected late 2023. If active surveillance plus surgery as needed after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, active surveillance can be implemented as a standard of care.

ObjectiveAccurate endoscopic differentiation would enable to resect and discard small and diminutive colonic lesions, thereby increasing cost-efficiency. Current classification systems based on narrow band imaging (NBI), however, do not include neoplastic sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps). We aimed to develop and validate a new classification system for endoscopic differentiation of adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and SSA/Ps <10 mm.DesignWe developed the Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP) classification, combining the NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic classification and criteria for differentiation of SSA/Ps in a stepwise approach. Ten consultant gastroenterologists predicted polyp histology, including levels of confidence, based on the endoscopic aspect of 45 polyps, before and after participation in training in the WASP classification. After 6 months, the same endoscopists predicted polyp histology of a new set of 50 polyps, with a ratio of lesions comparable to daily practice.ResultsThe accuracy of optical diagnosis was 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.71) at baseline, which improved to 0.79 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) after training. For polyps diagnosed with high confidence the accuracy was 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.82), which improved to 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, p<0.01). The accuracy of optical diagnosis after 6 months was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.80), increasing to 0.84 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) considering high confidence diagnosis. The combined negative predictive value with high confidence of diminutive neoplastic lesions (adenomas and SSA/Ps together) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96).ConclusionsWe developed and validated the first integrative classification method for endoscopic differentiation of small and diminutive adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and SSA/Ps. In a still image evaluation setting, introduction of the WASP classification significantly improved the accuracy of optical diagnosis overall as well as SSA/P in particular, which proved to be sustainable after 6 months.

International guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of premalignant gastric lesions. However, the diagnostic yield and preventive effect require further study. We therefore aimed to assess the incidence of neoplastic progression and to assess the ability of various tests to identify patients most at risk for progression. Patients from the Netherlands and Norway with a previous diagnosis of atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM) or dysplasia were offered endoscopic surveillance. All histological specimens were assessed according to the updated Sydney classification and the operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia (OLGIM) system. In addition, we measured serum pepsinogens (PG) and gastrin-17. 279 (mean age 57.9 years, SD 11.4, male/female 137/142) patients were included and underwent at least one surveillance endoscopy during follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 57 months (SD 36). Four subjects (1.4%) were diagnosed with high-grade adenoma/dysplasia or invasive neoplasia (ie, gastric cancer) during follow-up. Two of these patients were successfully treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection, while the other two underwent a total gastrectomy. Compared with patients with extended AG/IM (PGI/II≤3 and/or OGLIM stage III-IV), patients with limited AG/IM (PG I/II>3 and OLGIM stage 0-II) did not develop high-grade adenoma/dysplasia or invasive neoplasia during follow-up (p=0.02). In a low gastric cancer incidence area, a surveillance programme can detect gastric cancer at an early curable stage with an overall risk of neoplastic progression of 0.3% per year. Use of serological markers in endoscopic surveillance programmes may improve risk stratification.

The current surveillance strategy in Barrett's esophagus (BE) uses only histological findings of the last endoscopy to assess neoplastic progression risk. As predictor values vary across endoscopies, single measurements may not be an accurate reflection. Our aim was to explore the value of using longitudinal evolutions (i.e. successive measurements) of histological findings (low-grade dysplasia (LGD)) and immunohistochemical biomarkers (p53 and SOX2) by investigating the association with Barrett's progression. In this proof-of-principle study of a longitudinal dynamic risk estimation model with a multicenter cohort design, 631 BE patients from 15 Dutch hospitals who were under surveillance were included. Longitudinal dynamic values of LGD, p53, and SOX2 were included in a multivariate joint model to estimate the risk of high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Longitudinal evolutions of aberrant expression of p53 (HR 1.26, p<0.01) and SOX2 (HR 1.43, p<0.01) were associated with an increased HGD/EAC risk. We also found weak evidence of an association with the longitudinal evolution of the presence of LGD (HR 1.02, p = 0.12). The performance of the model was good (AUC 0.80-0.88). Using this model, for each future BE patient the probability of aberrant expression of biomarkers based on multiple longitudinal observations can be estimated. This probability is translated in progression risk, expressed as HR. This study provides solid ground to further explore a paradigm shift from currently recommended fixed intervals towards personalized surveillance, in which tailored risk estimations and corresponding surveillance intervals can be updated at every FU endoscopy for individual BE patients.

Main recommendations 1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence. 7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence. 8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6–9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014–15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.