Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Most colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, including fecal immunochemical (FIT) and multitarget stool DNA tests, require patients to scrape a stool sample at home before mailing it to a central lab. This requirement not only deters screening adherence but can also introduce risks of human error, environmental exposure, and transit-related issues. The multitarget stool RNA test (mt-sRNA), which comprises a FIT component and an RNA molecular component, is the only FDA-approved stool-based test for the detection of both CRC and advanced adenomas (AA) that does not require patients to perform an at-home FIT. Instead, trained technicians complete the FIT in the laboratory after the sample is received. This study evaluates the comparability of at-home and in-laboratory FIT in relation to mt-sRNA test performance. METHODS:To assess comparability between the 2 FIT methods, banked residual stool samples from the mt-sRNA test pivotal clinical trial (CRC-PREVENT) were used. As part of clinical trial requirements, subjects were required to collect a stool sample using the mt-sRNA collection kit and complete an at-home FIT swab before shipping the sample back to the laboratory. Patients were subsequently required to complete a screening colonoscopy. Residual stool was sampled using the in-laboratory FIT. Both FIT collection methods (at-home and in-laboratory) were analyzed identically. FIT results were compared with each other and with colonoscopy, to assess concordance, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS:A total of 1079 stool samples were tested using both at-home and in-laboratory FIT methods. Overall concordance was 93%. Among 20 CRC cases, the sensitivity for both methods was 75% (n=15). For 231 AA cases, sensitivity for the at-home and in-laboratory FIT was 33% and 38%, respectively. Positive percent agreement (PPA) for colorectal neoplasia was 87%. Among 791 subjects with negative findings, specificity for the at-home and in-laboratory FIT was 94% and 95%, respectively. For subjects with negative findings, the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 98%. When incorporating the in-laboratory FIT into the mt-sRNA test, method-calibrated CRC and AA sensitivities were 94% and 48%, respectively. Method-calibrated specificity for no lesions on colonoscopy was 90%. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that in-laboratory FIT performance may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of the mt-sRNA test. The in-laboratory method may also reduce inadequate sampling and improve patient ease of use.

BACKGROUND:Protocols for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection are lacking. This may contribute to divergent quality standards and hinder reliable comparison of incomplete resection rates (IRRs) across resection devices, techniques, endoscopists and institutions. To inform the development of such protocols, we aimed to review available methods. METHODS:We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 30, 2024. Studies describing the use or validation of methods for assessing completeness of polyp resections were included. Studies using recurrence detected at follow-up or histopathological resection specimen margin assessment as outcome measure were excluded, unless used as a reference standard for evaluation of other methods. RESULTS:Forty-five eligible studies were identified. Methods proposed to assist in visual confirmation of complete resection included the use of image enhancement techniques (n=6), artificial intelligence (n=1), and resection defect diameter (n=1). Methods for measuring IRRs based on a histopathological reference standard involved biopsy sampling (n=29) and extended margin resection (n=8). IRR measurement protocols differed in terms of factors such as location and number of biopsies (1-8), and widths of extended resections (1-3 mm). IRRs exceeding 10% were observed for all polyp size categories and almost all resection techniques, with considerable variability in IRRs reported across studies (biopsy sampling: 0-24.2%; extended resection: 0-61.1%). CONCLUSIONS:Different methods are available to assist in visual confirmation of complete resection and measuring IRRs, with considerable variability in their application. This review highlights the need for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection.

The performance of a CRC screening blood test was validated in a prospective, multicenter, observational study (PREEMPT CRC). The composition of the clinical study population can impact performance measures, potentially affecting the generalizability of the observed outcomes. We conducted a prespecified post-stratification adjustment analysis in which PREEMPT CRC performance values were adjusted to US Census age and sex distribution. The PREEMPT CRC evaluable cohort had a higher proportion of younger individuals and females than the census population. Compared to observed values, census adjustment demonstrated nominally higher CRC sensitivity (81.1% [95% confidence interval or CI, 71.3-88.1%] vs 79.2% [95% CI, 68.4-86.9%]) and advanced precancerous lesion sensitivity (13.7% [95% CI, 12.4-15.0%] vs 12.5% [95% CI, 11.3-13.8%]), with lower advanced colorectal neoplasia specificity (90.4% [95% CI, 90.0-90.7%) vs 91.5% [95% CI, 91.2-91.9%]). Negative and positive predictive values were consistent across age groups, highlighting consistent clinical interpretability of test results regardless of patient age.

BACKGROUND:Emerging blood tests may improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake and outcomes but are less sensitive for advanced precancerous lesions than some currently recommended tests. We examine whether these tests meet expectations for U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation. METHODS:A decision-analytic model that informed USPSTF was replicated and used to estimate the lifetime benefits (averted CRC cases & deaths, life-years gained [LYG]), burdens (required screening tests & colonoscopies), and harms (colonoscopy-related complications) for annual, biennial or triennial blood testing through age 45-75 years vs a benchmark of recommended and contemporary stool-based strategies, with colonoscopy screening as the reference. Base-case analyses assumed 100% adherence. Sensitivity analyses evaluated more realistic scenarios. RESULTS:Among benchmark strategies, colonoscopy screening had the most benefit, with an estimated 30 CRC deaths averted, 356 LYG, 4270 colonoscopies required and 15 complications per 1000 adults; stool-based strategies resulted in 81-88% of LYG for colonoscopy, 6829-19,476 screening tests, 1523-1880 colonoscopies, and 9-10 complications. By comparison, annual blood testing resulted in 85-87% of LYG for colonoscopy and an intermediate number of screenings, colonoscopies and complications. Biennial and triennial blood testing provided 57-72% of LYG for colonoscopy but resulted in net population benefit under plausible scenarios for increased utilization vs existing strategies. CONCLUSIONS:The estimated benefits, burdens and harms of annual blood testing are within the range of current CRC screening strategies. Biennial and triennial testing should also be considered for recommendation given potential for increased utilization and net population benefit.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, emphasizing the need for effective later-line therapies. Fruquintinib, a selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)1-3 inhibitor, has emerged as a promising option for refractory mCRC. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates its efficacy and safety, both as monotherapy and in combination with programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Online Vendor of International Databases (OVID), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (2010-2025). Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or real-world data on fruquintinib in mCRC after at least two prior therapies. Real-world evidence was included to complement RCT findings, as it captures broader populations, treatment patterns, and outcomes not fully reflected in controlled trial settings. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and event rates were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:. 4.0%, P=0.04). In cross-study comparisons, monotherapy appeared to yield numerically longer PFS, although this was not based on head-to-head trials. AEs occurred in 86.7%, with grade ≥3 in 30.9%, most often hypertension (8.1%) and hand-foot skin reaction (5.8%). High heterogeneity was observed for several outcomes including AEs and DCR. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Fruquintinib significantly improves PFS and disease control in refractory mCRC with manageable toxicity. Limitations include heterogeneity across studies, with most conducted in predominantly Chinese cohorts. Further studies should explore optimal combination strategies and biomarker-based selection.

BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common and second deadliest cancer in the US. Screening is effective at reducing CRC incidence and mortality, but rates of screening remain suboptimal. There are no sensitive machine learning models for accurately identifying individuals at risk for colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of our study was to develop and validate a novel machine learning model that uses multimodal Electronic Health Record (EHR) data, including the most recent complete blood count (CBC), basic metabolic panel (BMP), ICD codes, and medications, to estimate a patient's likelihood of having CRC or an advanced precancerous lesion. METHODS:We developed ColAI, an L1-regularized logistic regression model trained on 1-year trailing EHR data, to predict CRC or advanced adenoma at screening colonoscopy. Labs are treated as continuous variables, while ICD codes and medications are represented as binary indicators of presence. ColAI was trained using 87,825 screening colonoscopies and validated using 21,957 independent colonoscopies between August 1, 2020, and March 31, 2024, from the NYU Langone Health system. RESULTS:ColAI achieved an AUROC of 0.93 for CRC and 0.98 for CRC or advanced adenoma. Performance remained consistent across different hospitals and time periods within NYU Langone, demonstrating strong generalizability. Performance also remained consistent between first and follow-up colonoscopies, decreasing concern for selection bias. CONCLUSIONS:ColAI accurately identifies patients at elevated risk for CRC using only routine EHR data. It has the potential to enhance targeted outreach to high-risk, unscreened individuals and improve early cancer detection at the population level.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease frequently associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). While both conditions independently increase cancer risk, the comparative burden of cancer in patients with coexisting IBD and PSC (IBD-PSC), isolated IBD, and isolated PSC remains inadequately defined. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX nationwide electronic health records database. Patients with IBD-PSC were compared to individuals with isolated IBD and isolated PSC. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance key baseline characteristics across groups. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for intestinal and extraintestinal malignancies across three pairwise comparisons: IBD-PSC vs isolated IBD, IBD-PSC vs isolated PSC, and isolated PSC vs isolated IBD. RESULTS:After matching, 4,187 patients were included in each of the IBD-PSC and isolated IBD groups. IBD-PSC was associated with increased risks of colorectal cancer (aHR 4.01, 95% CI: 2.79-5.75, p < 0.001), cholangiocarcinoma (aHR 27.54, 95% CI: 15.05-50.38, p < 0.001), liver cancer (aHR 13.41, 95% CI: 7.42-24.26, p < 0.001), pancreatic cancer (aHR 2.37, 95% CI: 1.18-4.76, p = 0.013), and gallbladder cancer (aHR 36.26, 95% CI: 4.94-266.23, p < 0.001). Compared to isolated PSC, IBD-PSC had higher risks of colorectal (aHR 5.72, 95% CI: 3.17-10.31, p < 0.001) and gallbladder cancer (aHR 4.14, 95% CI: 1.69-10.14, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:IBD-PSC is associated with substantially elevated risks of both intestinal and extraintestinal malignancies compared to isolated IBD or PSC. These findings highlight the synergistic oncogenic potential of coexisting IBD and PSC and underscore the need for tailored surveillance and early detection strategies in this high-risk population.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among patients receiving care at multiple federally qualified health care centers (FQHCs) in New York city are low. Proactive outreach through mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), reminders and navigation are evidence based interventions to improve CRC screening rates but remain untested in this study population. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and cost-effectiveness of a multilevel proactive outreach strategy to improve CRC screening rates among underserved adults in Brooklyn, New York. METHODS:This is a randomized controlled trial across five FQHCs serving predominantly Black and low-income populations. Adults aged 45-75 who are overdue for CRC screening are randomized to usual care or a multi-level proactive intervention. The intervention includes mailed education and FIT kits, patient navigation, and support for colonoscopy scheduling and follow-up. The primary outcome is CRC screening completion (FIT or colonoscopy) within six months. Secondary outcomes include colonoscopy follow-up after a positive FIT, implementation barriers and facilitators, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS:A total of 1379 participants have been enrolled through May 2025. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This trial addresses a critical gap in CRC prevention by testing a scalable, multilevel outreach model tailored to underserved populations. Findings will inform future strategies to enhance screening rates while reducing screening disparities through sustainable FQHC-based programs.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and concomitant inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the risk of CRC in patients with PSC without IBD remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the risk of CRC in patients with PSC without a history of IBD using a large national database. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX database to identify patients ≥ 18 years with PSC. Patients were then divided into two groups, PSC with IBD (PSC-IBD cohort) and PSC without IBD (PSC non-IBD cohort), and were matched with patients without a history of PSC or IBD (non-PSC/non-IBD group) by using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the risk of first diagnosis of CRC. With censoring applied, Kaplan-Meier analysis with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs was used to compare time-to-event rates at daily time intervals. RESULTS:PSC patients without IBD were at increased risk of CRC compared to the non-PSC/IBD cohort (aHR = 2.91; 95% CI: 1.6-6.0). Patients with PSC and IBD exhibited a higher risk of CRC (aHR = 6.5; 95% CI: 3.78-11.2), especially among the UC cohort (aHR = 6.3; 95% CI: 3.2-12.4). Patients with PSC were at increased risk of various gastrointestinal malignancies (aHR = 10.5; 95% CI: 7.3-15; p < 0.0001), including hepatobiliary cancers, pancreatic cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings provide real-world evidence that PSC is an independent risk factor for colorectal cancer, even in the absence of concomitant IBD. These results support the need for further research to determine whether patients with isolated PSC may benefit from tailored CRC surveillance strategies.