Re: Targeting Colorectal Advanced Neoplasia in Asia-Pacific or Locally: Why the Score Name Matters.

Hongda Chen,Min Dai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2023.05.015

2023-01-01

Abstract:The TARGET-C (Comparative Evaluation of Novel Screening Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening in China) study is currently the only large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to report on the feasibility, participation, yield, and cost related to colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and a risk-adapted approach for 3 rounds of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening conducted in China.1Chen H. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023; 21: 808-818Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar The authors used the “modified Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) score” for risk stratification in the risk-adaptive screening cohort, which comprises 5 CRC-related risk factors, including age, sex, family history of CRC among first-degree relatives, smoking, and body mass index. A score of ≥4 categorizes a patient as high risk and a score <4 defines low-risk patients (dichotomous). High- and low-risk patients were referred to colonoscopy and FIT screening, respectively, and patients with positive FIT were referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. However, we have concerns about the scoring system naming. First, APCS is not only driven by the Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer (APWGCC), but also derived and validated in the Asia-Pacific population. The APWGCC was formed in 2004, aiming at unifying the response to the rising trend in incidence and mortality from CRC among most Asian populations. The APCS score is a well-validated risk stratification tool.2Yeoh K.G. et al.Gut. 2011; 60: 1236-1241Crossref PubMed Scopus (228) Google Scholar The derivation and validation cohorts were separate and independent, and both enrolled in 17 endoscopy centers in 11 Asian cities. Thus, the name of the score reflected its aims (colorectal screening) and the applicable population (Asia-Pacific population). In Asia-Pacific countries with rising CRC incidence but with no organized screening programs, the APCS score alone or combined with FIT for triaging colonoscopy requirement could allow efficient use of constrained endoscopy resources. The original APCS score included only 4 items without obesity, diabetes, and other possible risk factors.2Yeoh K.G. et al.Gut. 2011; 60: 1236-1241Crossref PubMed Scopus (228) Google Scholar To modify the existing APCS score with body mass index to predict the risk for colorectal advanced neoplasia in Asia, a similar prospective, cross-sectional, and multicenter study was carried out in 11 Asian cities recruiting a total of 7463 asymptomatic patients who underwent screening colonoscopy. After grouping individuals into average risk, mediate risk, and high risk (tripartite), the 5-item modified APCS score seemed to perform better in selecting asymptomatic Asian subjects for screening priority. Unfortunately, the modified APCS score is published only in abstract form.3Sung J.J.Y. et al.Gastroenterology. 2014; 146S-730Abstract Full Text PDF Google Scholar Second, several other risk-score systems developed in Asia have circumvented the term “modified APCS score” to avoid ambiguities, although using similar risk factors in different combinations and weighting assignments. Names of local risk-score systems usually contain a reference to country or region, such as Korean Colorectal Screening score.4Kim D.H. et al.J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015; 49: 41-49Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar Nevertheless, pure acronyms were often avoided because most local risk-score systems may not be representative of the general country/region population. This scenario is exemplified by a scoring model in a screened population of asymptomatic Japanese individuals.5Sekiguchi M. et al.J Gastroenterol. 2018; 53: 1109-1119Crossref PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar In the Asia-Pacific region, there is widely variable disease prevalence, healthcare funding models, capacity, and manpower issues, which may affect the choice of risk stratification approach and selection of CRC screening strategies. In the third consensus, the APWGCC recommended that any of these risk stratification systems should be adopted after validation in local regions.6Sung J.J.Y. et al.Gut. 2022; 71: 2152-2166Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar Finally, the score in the TARGET-C study should not be named “modified APCS.” The study did not develop a new score. The score in question exhibits several differences (eg, dichotomous vs tripartite) albeit drawing on the 5 risk factors of modified APCS score. From the study protocol published in 2019 to the final report in 2023, we can find the weighting adjustments of different age periods and constructive exploration of the optimal positivity thresholds.7Lu M. et al.Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2021; 12e00398Crossref Scopus (1) Google Scholar The score has not been broadly validated in the Asia-Pacific population, and is rather a Chinese version of the modified APCS score. Because the acronym “TARGET-C” means targeting both colorectal advanced neoplasia and the Chinese population, we consider “TARGET-C score” to be more suitable than modified APCS score, and is a name that is easy to remember and find when searching the literature.8Leeming J. Nature. 2023; (Published online)https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01011-2Google Scholar