1. Benefits of Screening Colonoscopy

2. Colorectal Cancer The third most common cancer in the U.S. 148,810 new cases expected in 2008 The second deadliest cancer 49,960 deaths nationwide More than 1 million Americans living with colorectal cancer

3. Colorectal Cancer Risk Factors Age 90% of cases occur in people 50 and older Gender Slight male predominance, but common in both men and women Race/Ethnicity African Americans have highest incidence and mortality rate of all groups in U.S., Hispanics the lowest (with considerable variation depending on country of origin) Increased rates also documented in Alaska Natives, some American Indian tribes, Ashkenazi Jews Increased risk with: Personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, adenomatous polyps, colon cancer, other conditions

4. Colorectal Cancer

5. Risk Factors - Polyps Different types Hyperplastic Minimal cancer potential Adenomatous Approximately 90% of colon and rectal cancers arise from adenomas

6. Normal to Adenoma to Carcinoma Human colon carcinogenesis progresses by the dysplasia/adenoma to carcinoma pathway

7. Benefits of Screening Cancer Prevention Removal of pre-cancerous polyps prevent cancer (unique aspect of colon cancer screening) Improved Survival Early detection markedly improves chances of long term survival

8. Benefits of Screening 89.8% 67.7% 10.3% Survival Rates by Disease Stage 5-year Survival

9. Colorectal Screening Rates Just 40% of colorectal cancers are detected at the earliest stage A little more than half of Americans over age 50 report having had a recent colorectal cancer screening test Slow but steady improvement in these numbers over the past decade (but all are not benefiting to the same degree)

10. Trends in Recent Endoscopy Prevalence (%) by Educational Attainment and Health Insurance Status, Adults 50 Years and Older, US, 1997-2004 Prevalence (%)

11. Colorectal Stage vs Insurance Percentage

12. CRC Screening Guidelines What’s New? CRC screening tests are grouped into two categories: Tests that detect cancer and precancerous polyps Tests that primarily detect cancer * It is the strong opinion of the consensus guidelines group that colon cancer prevention should be the primary goal of CRC screening. Exams that are designed to detect both early cancer and precancerous polyps should be encouraged if resources are available and patients are willing to undergo an invasive test If the full range of screening tests are not available, physicians should make every effort to offer at least one test from each category

13. CRC Screening Guidelines What Else is New? Two new tests recommended: Stool DNA (sDNA) and Computerized tomographic colonography (CTC)- sometimes referred to as virtual colonoscopy The guidelines establish a sensitivity threshold for recommended tests The guidelines delineate important quality- related factors for each form of testing

14. 2008 CRC Screening Guidelines Beginning at age 50, both men and women at average risk for developing colorectal cancer should use one of the screening tests below: Tests That Detect Adenomatous Polyps and Cancer Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) every 5 years*, or Colonoscopy every 10 years, or Double contrast barium enema (DCBE) every 5 years*, or CT colonography (CTC) every 5 years* Tests That Primarily Detect Cancer Annual guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) with high test sensitivity for cancer*, **, or Annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) with high test sensitivity for cancer*, **, or Stool DNA test (sDNA), with high sensitivity for cancer*, interval uncertain *Colonoscopy should be done if test results are positive. **For gFOBT or FIT used as screening test, the take-home multiple sample method should be used. gFOBT or FIT done during a digital rectal exam in the doctor’s office is not adequate for screening.

15. CRC Screening Guidelines New recommendations provide information on performance and quality issues related to each form of testing. An overriding goal of this update is to provide a practical guideline for physicians and the public Guidelines continue to emphasize options for testing

16. 2008 CRC Guidelines Continue to Emphasize Options Because: Evidence does not yet support any single test as “best” Uptake of screening remains disappointingly low Individuals differ in their preferences for one test or another Primary care physicians differ in their ability to offer, explain, or refer patients to all options equally Access is uneven geographically, and in terms of test charges and insurance coverage Uncertainty exists about performance of different screening methods with regard to benefits, harms, and costs (especially on programmatic basis)

17. If tests that an prevent CRC are preferred, why not recommend them alone?  Greater patient requirements for successful completion  Endoscopic and radiologic exams require a bowel prep and an office or facility visit  No true “gold standard”  Colonoscopy misses 5-10% of significant lesions in expert settings  Higher potential for patient injury than fecal testing  Risk levels vary between tests, facilities, practitioners  Patient preference  Many individuals don’t want an invasive test or a test that requires a bowel prep  Some prefer to have screening in the privacy of their home  Some may not have access to the invasive tests due to lack of coverage or local resources

18. Quality Issues

19. 2008 CRC Screening Guidelines The medical literature reflects quality concerns related to essentially all forms of testing Examples include: Inadequate flex sig insertion depth Abbreviated colonoscopy withdrawal times Poor sensitivity of in-office FOBT

20. FOBT Sensitivity: Take Home vs In-Office Sensitivity FOBT method (Hemoccult II) All Advanced Lesions Cancer 3 card, take-home 23.9%43.9% Single sample, In-office 4.9%9.5%

21. In-Office FOBT should be abandoned Conclusion: In-office FOBT is essentially worthless as a screening tool for CRC and must be strongly discouraged However: In a recent national survey, nearly 30% of physicians reported using single-sample, in-office FOBT as their primary method of screening for colorectal cancer.

22. 2008 CRC Screening Guidelines New Tests

23. Stool DNA

24. Stool DNA Test (sDNA) Rationale Fecal occult blood tests detect blood in the stool – which is intermittent and non-specific Colon cells are shed continuously Polyps and cancer cells contain abnormal DNA Stool DNA tests look for abnormal DNA from cells that are passed in the DNA **all positive tests should be followed with colonoscopy

25. Genetic Model of Colorectal Cancer Normal Epithelium Adenoma Late Adenoma Late Cancer Early Cancer Dwell Time:Many decades2-5 years Mutation APCK-rasp53 Bat-26 (HNPCC)Bat-26 (Sporadic) Optimum phase for early detection

26. sDNA – Sample Collection

27. Collection bucket inserted into bracket and installed under toilet seat Patient supplies whole stool sample; no diet or medication restrictions Patient seals sample in outer container and freezer pack Patient seals container and ships back to designated lab (all packing materials and labels supplied)

28. Performance Characteristics of Stool DNA in the Detection of CRC Three versions of the previously marketed sDNA test have been evaluated Version 1 (K-ras, APC, p53, BAT-26, DIA) was evaluated in the Imperiale trial Version 1.1 (K-ras, APC, p53), PreGen-Plus is the currently marketed test Version 2 (Vimentin only, or Vimentin + DIA) Earlier and more recent tests were evaluated in smaller, mixed populations

29. Performance Characteristics of Stool DNA in the Detection of CRC Testing evaluates stool for the presence of altered DNA in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence No dietary restrictions No stool sampling (utilizes the entire stool) Several studies suggesting strong patient acceptance Testing interval uncertain Uncertainty about the meaning of false positives Study with One- Time Testing (v) Sensitivity For Cancer Ahlquist, et al Gastro, 200 (1) 91% Imperiale, et al NEJM, 2004 (1) 51.6% Syngal, et al Cancer, 2006 (1) 63% Whitney, et al J Mol Diagn, 2004 (1) 70% Chen, et al JNCI, 2005 (2) 46% Itkowitz, et al DDW- AB, 2006 (2) 88%

30. Stool DNA Limitations Misses some cancers Sensitivity for adenomas with current commercial version of test is low Technology (and test versions) are in transition Costs much more than other forms of stool testing (approximately $300- $400 per test) Not covered by most insurers Appropriate re-screening interval is not known Not clear how to manage positive stool DNA test if colonoscopy is negative FDA issues Test availability

31. CT Colonography (CTC) CTC Image Optical Colonoscopy

32. CT Colonography Rationale Allows detailed evaluation of the entire colon A number of studies have demonstrated a high level of sensitivity for cancer and large polyps Minimally invasive (rectal tube for air insufflation) No sedation required

33. CT Colonography 3-D view 2-D view Polyp

34. CTC Virtual “Fly Through”

35. CTC vs Optical Colonoscopy: Sensitivities for Polyps > 5mm StudyPatients Polyps > 5mm Sensitivity No. Per Polyp (%) No. Per Patient (%) 6-9mm>10mm6-9mm>10mm Boston University, Fenton et al 1005836 (82)22 (91)--- (92)--- (96) Mayo Clinic, Fletcher et al 180263142 (47)121 (75)--- (88)--- (85) UCSF, Yee et al 300223141 (80)82 (90)(93)(100)

36. CTC vs Optical Colonoscopy Meta-Analyses Polyp Size CTC performance > 10mm6-9mmCancer Pooled Sensitivity 85-93%70-86%85.7% Pooled Specificity 97%86-93%----

37. CTC vs Optical Colonoscopy: Sensitivities for All Polyps Polyp Size >10mm>8mm>6mm CTC 92.2%92.6%85.7% Colonoscopy 88.2%89.5%90.0%

38. CTC – Extra-Colonic Findings Most have limited clinical impact, but some are important: Asymptomatic cancers outside of colon and rectum Aortic aneurysms Renal and gall bladder calculi

39. CT Colonography Limitations Requires full bowel prep (which most patients find to be the most distressing element of colonoscopy) Colonoscopy is required if abnormalities detected, sometimes necessitating a second bowel prep Steep learning curve for radiologists Limited availability to high quality exams in many parts of the country Most insurers do not currently cover CTC as a screening modality Extra-colonic findings can lead to additional testing (may have both positive and negative connotations) Questions regarding: Significance of radiation exposure Management of small polyps

40. Comparison of Recommendations Screening MethodACS/USMSTF/ACRUSPSTF Stool Testing Guaiac based FOBT (gFOBT) Annual screening with high sensitivity guaiac based tests Annual screening with high sensitivity guaiac tests Immunochemical-based FOBT (FIT)Annual screening Stool DNA (sDNA)sDNA is an acceptable option Insufficient evidence to recommend for or against sDNA Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening every 5 years. Screening every 5 years, with annual gFOBT or FIT is an option Screening every 5 years, with gFOBT every 3 years ColonoscopyScreening every 10 years CT ColonographyScreening every 5 years Insufficient evidence to recommend for or against CT Colonography Double Contrast Barium Enema (DCBE) Screening every 5 yearsNot addressed

41. The 2008 CRC Guidelines Update was a Joint Effort of 5 Organizations American Cancer Society U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer American Gastroenterological Association American College of Gastroenterology American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopists American College of Radiology