Search

Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have increased cancer risk. Platinum retention in healthy tissue may contribute to carcinogenesis. We assessed total platinum concentrations in plasma, urine, and normal colonic mucosa samples in TCS treated with cisplatin. From the total TCS treated with ≥3 cycles cisplatin who participated in a colonoscopy-screening study in four Dutch hospitals (n = 154), plasma (n = 131) and urine (n = 115) samples were collected. During colonoscopy, 60 biopsies of normal colonic mucosa (two samples each per 30 randomly selected patients undergoing colonoscopy) were obtained. Samples were analyzed for total platinum concentrations using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and compared with controls (plasma: 10, urine: 3, normal colonic mucosa: 9). The median age at colonoscopy was 50 years (interquartile range (IQR): 43–57) and the median time since treatment was 20 years (IQR:16–26). Median platinum concentrations in plasma (38 pg/mL; IQR: 24–61 pg/mL) and urine (376 pg/mL; IQR: 208–698 pg/mL) remained elevated in TCS up to 40 years post-treatment and were higher than in controls (all controls were below limits of detection [plasma: 25 pg/mL, urine: 6 pg/mL]). The median platinum concentration in normal colonic mucosa was 0.58 pg/mg (IQR: 0.33–1.59 pg/mg) in the transverse and 0.51 pg/mg (IQR:0.26–1.25 pg/mg) in the descending colon. Cisplatin treatment is associated with long-term retention of platinum in various patient sample types. This might increase cancer risk by causing somatic mutations, potentially explaining the elevated risk of second malignant neoplasms in TCS. The long-term effects of platinum retention should be monitored to understand carcinogenesis and to provide guidelines for early second cancer detection.

Background:The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. Methods: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. Results: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screendetected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38- 0.68). Conclusions: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Background:Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRCs) are often treated less invasively than stage-matched nonscreen-detected CRCs, but the reasons for this are not fully understood. This study evaluated the treatment of stage I CRCs detected within and outside of the screening program in the Netherlands. Methods:Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry for all stage I CRCs diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2020 were analyzed, comparing patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics of screen-detected and nonscreen-detected stage I CRCs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between treatment (local excision only vs. surgical oncologic resection) and patient and tumor characteristics, stratified for T stage and tumor location. Results:Screen-detected stage I CRCs were relatively more often T1 than T2 compared with non-screen-detected stage I CRCs (66.9 % vs. 53.3 %; P 0.001). When only T1 tumors were considered, both screen-detected colon and rectal cancers were more often treated with local excision only than non-screen-detected T1 cancers (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95%CI 1.93 2.49; and OR 1.29, 95 %CI 1.05 1.59, respectively), adjusted for sex, tumor location, lymphovascular invasion (LVI) status, and tumor differentiation. Conclusions:Less invasive treatment of screen-detected stage I CRC is partly explained by the higher rate of T1 cancers compared with non-screen-detected stage I CRCs. T1 stage I screen-detected CRCs were also more likely to undergo less invasive treatment than non-screen-detected CRCs, adjusted for risk factors such as LVI and tumor differentiation. Future research should investigate whether the choice of local excision was related to unidentified cancerrelated factors or the expertise of the endoscopists.

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals’ views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants’ information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

Background: In 2014, the national population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was implemented in the Netherlands. Biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for hemoglobin (Hb) is used at a cut-off of 47 µg Hb per gram feces. The CRC screening program successfully started, with high participation rates and yield of screening. Now that the program has reached a steady state, there is potential to further optimize the program. Previous studies showed that prior fecal Hb (f-Hb) concentrations just below the FIT cut-off are associated with a higher risk for detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) at subsequent screening rounds. We aim to achieve a better balance between the harms and benefits of CRC screening by offering participants tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations after negative FIT. Methods: This mixed-methods study will be performed within the Dutch national CRC screening program and will consist of: (1) a randomized controlled trial (RCT), (2) focus group studies, and (3) decision modelling. The primary outcome is the yield of AN per screened individual in personalized screening vs. uniform screening. Secondary outcomes are perspectives on, acceptability of and adherence to personalized screening, as well as long-term outcomes of personalized vs. uniform screening. The RCT will include 20,000 participants of the Dutch CRC screening program; 10,000 in the intervention and 10,000 in the control arm. The intervention arm will receive a personalized screening interval based on the prior f-Hb concentration (1, 2 or 3 years). The control arm will receive a screening interval according to current practice (2 years). The focus group studies are designed to understand individuals’ perspectives on and acceptability of personalized CRC screening. Results of the RCT will be incorporated into the MISCAN-Colon model to determine long-term benefits, harms, and costs of personalized vs. uniform CRC screening. Discussion: The aim of t

Item does not contain fulltext

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic forced colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs to downscale their colonoscopy capacity. In this study, we assessed strategies to deal with temporary restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program while aiming to retain the maximum possible preventive effect of the screening program. Design We simulated the Dutch national CRC screening program inviting individuals between ages 55 and 75 for biennial FIT using the MISCAN-Colon model including the 3-month disruption in the first half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the second half of 2020 and 2021, we simulated three different strategies for the total target population: 1) increasing the FIT cut-off, 2) skipping one screening for specific screening ages, and 3) extending the screening interval. We estimated the impact on required colonoscopy capacity in 2020–2021 and life years (LYs) lost in the long-term. Results Increasing the FIT cut-off, skipping screening ages and extending the screening interval resulted in a maximum reduction of 25,100 (-17.0%), 16,100(-10.9%) and 19,000 (-12.9%) colonoscopies, respectively. Modelling an increased FIT cut-off, the number of LYs lost ranged between 1,400 and 4,400. Skipping just a single screening age resulted in approximately 2,700 LYs lost and this was doubled in case of skipping two screening ages. Extending the screening interval up to 34 months had the smallest impact on LYs lost (up to 1,100 LYs lost). Conclusion This modelling study shows that to anticipate on restricted colonoscopy capacity, temporarily extending the screening interval retains the maximum possible preventive effect of the CRC screening program.

Background: Many European countries offer organised population-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes. Around age 55 and 60, Dutch women are invited to all three screening programmes. We examined the extent to which participation concurs and identified factors influencing concurrent participation. Materials and methods: Individual level data from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening invitations between 2017 and 2019 were extracted from the Dutch screening registry. The percentages of women participating in all three, two, one, or none of the programmes around age 55 and 60, and before subsequent round invitation were determined. Multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to estimate whether population density, socio-economic status (SES) per postal code area, and time between the three invitations (<3, 3–6, >6 months) were associated with concurrent participation. Results: Data from 332,484 women were analysed. At age 55, 53.7% participated in all three programmes, 22.1% in two, 11.7% in one, and 12.6% did not participate at all. At age 60, a similar participation pattern was observed. Women living in areas with higher population density were less likely (odds ratios 0.75–0.94) and women in higher SES groups were more likely (odds ratios 1.12–1.60) to participate in more screening programmes, although this positive association was smaller for the highest SES group. No substantial association was found between concurrent participation and timing of invitations. Conclusions: More than half of Dutch women participated in all three screening programmes and around 12% did not participate in any. Concurrent participation was lower in cities and lower SES groups.