Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seventeen NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance. DATA SOURCES: Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England. METHODS: Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821. LIMITATIONS: The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients. FUTURE WORK: Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancers develop from polyps, also called adenomas, which are growths on the lining of the bowel. Removal of adenomas, therefore, helps prevent bowel cancer. Adenomas can be detected and removed during colonoscopy, when a thin tube with a camera on one end is used to examine the bowel lining. In the UK, patients with adenomas are divided into three risk groups. Low-risk patients (i.e. those with one or two adenomas that are < 10 mm in size) are thought to be unlikely to develop bowel cancer after adenoma removal and follow-up colonoscopy is not recommended in this group. Intermediate-risk patients (i.e. those with three or four adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or one or two adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy 3 years after adenoma removal. High-risk patients (i.e. those with five or more adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or three or more adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy after 1 year and then usually again after 3 years. The number of follow-up colonoscopies carried out is stretching health-care resources and each procedure carries a small risk of complications for patients. It is possible that too many follow-up colonoscopies are being carried out. This study aimed to determine which patients require follow-up colonoscopies and how many are required to detect adenomas and prevent bowel cancer, while also being resource-efficient, cost-effective and not exposing patients to unnecessary risks. The study used data from 17 hospitals and cancer registries in the UK. In each risk group, one follow-up colonoscopy after adenoma removal was associated with a 40­50% reduction in bowel cancer risk. However, even without any follow-up, bowel cancer risk was no higher in some low- and intermediate-risk patients than in the general population. These patients may not need as many follow-up colonoscopies as recommended. In the case of higher-risk patients, who even after adenoma removal have a higher bowel cancer risk than the general population, follow-up colonoscopies are necessary and cost-effective.

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance aims to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines define low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, recommending different strategies for each. Evidence supporting the guidelines is limited. We examined CRC incidence and effects of surveillance on incidence among each risk group. DESIGN: Retrospective study of 33 011 patients who underwent colonoscopy with adenoma removal at 17 UK hospitals, mostly (87%) from 2000 to 2010. Patients were followed up through 2016. Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to estimate effects of surveillance on CRC incidence adjusted for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared incidence with that in the general population. RESULTS: After exclusions, 28 972 patients were available for analysis; 14 401 (50%) were classed as low-risk, 11 852 (41%) as intermediate-risk and 2719 (9%) as high-risk. Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, CRC incidence per 100 000 person-years was 140 (95% CI 122 to 162), 221 (195 to 251) and 366 (295 to 453), respectively. CRC incidence was 40%-50% lower with a single surveillance visit than with none: hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (0.29 to 0.82) in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk (SIR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02) and intermediate-risk (1.16, 0.97 to 1.37) patients, but higher among high-risk patients (1.91, 1.39 to 2.56). CONCLUSION: Postpolypectomy surveillance reduces CRC risk. However, even without surveillance, CRC risk in some low-risk and intermediate-risk patients is no higher than in the general population. These patients could be managed by screening rather than surveillance.

Chlorproguanil-dapsone-artesunate versus artemether-lumefantrine: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial in African children and adolescents with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: Chlorproguanil-dapsone-artesunate (CDA) was developed as an affordable, simple, fixed-dose artemisinin-based combination therapy for use in Africa. This trial was a randomized parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study to compare CDA and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) efficacy in uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria and further define the CDA safety profile, particularly its hematological safety in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) -deficient patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The trial was conducted at medical centers at 11 sites in five African countries between June 2006 and August 2007. 1372 patients (> or =1 to <15 years old, median age 3 years) with acute uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria were randomized (2:1) to receive CDA 2/2.5/4 mg/kg once daily for three days (N = 914) or six-doses of AL over three days (N = 458). Non-inferiority of CDA versus AL for efficacy was evaluated in the Day 28 per-protocol (PP) population using parasitological cure (polymerase chain reaction [PCR]-corrected). Cure rates were 94.1% (703/747) for CDA and 97.4% (369/379) for AL (treatment difference -3.3%, 95%CI -5.6, -0.9). CDA was non-inferior to AL, but there was simultaneous superiority of AL (upper 95%CI limit <0). Adequate clinical and parasitological response at Day 28 (uncorrected for reinfection) was 79% (604/765) with CDA and 83% (315/381) with AL. In patients with a G6PD-deficient genotype (94/603 [16%] hemizygous males, 22/598 [4%] homozygous females), CDA had the propensity to cause severe and clinically concerning hemoglobin decreases: the mean hemoglobin nadir was 75 g/L (95%CI 71, 79) at Day 7 versus 97 g/L (95%CI 91, 102) for AL. There were three deaths, unrelated to study medication (two with CDA, one with AL). CONCLUSIONS: Although parasitologically effective at Day 28, the hemolytic potential of CDA in G6PD-deficient patients makes it unsuitable for use in a public health setting in Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00344006.

Pharmacokinetics of chlorproguanil, dapsone, artesunate and their major metabolites in patients during treatment of acute uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

OBJECTIVE: Chlorproguanil (CPG)-dapsone (DDS)-artesunate was in development for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. The pharmacokinetics of CPG, DDS, artesunate and their metabolites chlorcycloguanil (CCG), monoacetyl dapsone (MADDS) and dihydroartemisinin (DHA) were investigated in patients with P. falciparum given CPG-DDS alone or plus artesunate. METHODS: Adult patients from Malawi and The Gambia taking part in a phase II clinical trial were randomised to receive a 3-day treatment of CPG-DDS alone (2/2.5 mg/kg/day) or plus 1, 2 or 4 mg/kg/day artesunate. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected up to 24 h post-first dose. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic analysis included 115 patients. For CPG, there was no significant effect of artesunate on C(max) or AUC(0-24), except the 90% confidence interval (CI) for AUC(0-24) for the 4 mg/kg artesunate dose was slightly below that for the standard bioequivalence range (90% CI 0.78, 1.11); this was not considered clinically relevant. Artesunate increased the CCG AUC(0-24) by 6-17% and C(max) by 0-16%. Artesunate had no significant effect on the rate or extent of absorption of DDS. For MADDS, artesunate increased the AUC(0-24) by 13-47% and C(max) by 8-45%. For 1, 2 and 4 mg/kg artesunate dosing, artesunate AUC(0-infinity) was 64.6, 151 and 400 ng.h/ml and C(max) 48.9, 106 and 224 ng/ml respectively; DHA AUC(0-infinity) was 538, 1,445 and 3,837 ng.h/ml and C(max) 228, 581 and 1,414 ng/ml respectively. Using a power model, the point estimates of slope were greater than 1 for artesunate AUC(0-t) by 16% and C(max) by 5% and for DHA by 39 and 21% respectively. CONCLUSION: Artesunate did not significantly affect CPG or DDS pharmacokinetics. For CCG and MADDS, small to moderate increases in exposure with artesunate dosing were observed. There was a greater than proportional increase in artesunate and DHA exposure with increasing artesunate dose. These effects are not considered to be clinically relevant. It should be noted that the CPG-DDS-artesunate programme has now been stopped following unacceptable haematological toxicity in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency during a phase III trial. In addition, the CPG-DDS combination has been withdrawn from clinical use.

Open-label comparative clinical study of chlorproguanil-dapsone fixed dose combination (Lapdap) alone or with three different doses of artesunate for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to determine the appropriate dose of artesunate for use in a fixed dose combination therapy with chlorproguanil-dapsone (CPG-DDS) for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. METHODS: Open-label clinical trial comparing CPG-DDS alone or with artesunate 4, 2, or 1 mg/kg at medical centers in Blantyre, Malawi and Farafenni, The Gambia. The trial was conducted between June 2002 and February 2005, including 116 adults (median age 27 years) and 107 children (median age 38 months) with acute uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Subjects were randomized into 4 groups to receive CPG-DDS alone or plus 4, 2 or 1 mg/kg of artesunate once daily for 3 days. Assessments took place on Days 0-3 in hospital and follow-up on Days 7 and 14 as out-patients. Efficacy was evaluated in the Day 3 per-protocol (PP) population using mean time to reduce baseline parasitemia by 90% (PC90). A number of secondary outcomes were also included. Appropriate artesunate dose was determined using a pre-defined decision matrix based on primary and secondary outcomes. Treatment emergent adverse events were recorded from clinical assessments and blood parameters. Safety was evaluated in the intent to treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: In the Day 3 PP population for the adult group (N = 85), mean time to PC90 was 19.1 h in the CPG-DDS group, significantly longer than for the +artesunate 1 mg/kg (12.5 h; treatment difference -6.6 h [95%CI -11.8, -1.5]), 2 mg/kg (10.7 h; -8.4 h [95%CI -13.6, -3.2]) and 4 mg/kg (10.3 h; -8.7 h [95%CI -14.1, -3.2]) groups. For children in the Day 3 PP population (N = 92), mean time to PC90 was 21.1 h in the CPG-DDS group, similar to the +artesunate 1 mg/kg group (17.7 h; -3.3 h [95%CI -8.6, 2.0]), though the +artesunate 2 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg groups had significantly shorter mean times to PC90 versus CPG-DDS; 14.4 h (treatment difference -6.4 h [95%CI -11.7, -1.0]) and 12.8 h (-7.4 h [95%CI -12.9, -1.8]), respectively. An analysis of mean time to PC90 for the Day 14 PP and ITT populations was consistent with the primary analysis. Treatment emergent, drug-related adverse events were experienced in 35.3% (41/116) of adults and 70.1% (75/107) of children; mostly hematological and gastroenterological. The nature and incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups. No dose-related changes in laboratory parameters were observed. Nine serious adverse events due to any cause occurred in five subjects including two cases of hemolysis believed to be associated with drug treatment (one adult, one child). One adult died of anaphylactic shock, not associated with investigational therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CPG-DDS plus artesunate demonstrated advantages over CPG-DDS alone for the primary efficacy endpoint (mean time to PC90) except in children for the 1 mg/kg artesunate dose. Based on a pre-defined decision matrix, the primary endpoint in the child group supported an artesunate dose of 4 mg/kg. Secondary endpoints also supported a 4 mg/kg artesunate dose to take forward into the remainder of the development program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00519467.