Programmatic screening for colorectal cancer: the COLONPREV study

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.

Objective

To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.

Intervention

Invitation to endoscopic screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.

Results

This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a fundamental tool in the prevention and early detection of one of the most prevalent and lethal cancers. Over the years, screening, particularly in those settings where it is well organized, has succeeded in reducing the incidence of colon and rectal cancer and improving the prognosis related to them. Despite considerable advancements in screening technologies and strategies, the effectiveness of CRC screening programs remains less than optimal. This paper examined the multifaceted reasons behind the persistent lack of effectiveness in CRC screening initiatives. Through a critical analysis of current methodologies, technological limitations, patient-related factors, and systemic challenges, we elucidated the complex interplay that hampers the successful reduction of CRC morbidity and mortality rates. While acknowledging the advancements that have improved aspects of screening, we emphasized the necessity of addressing the identified barriers comprehensively. This study aimed to raise awareness of how important CRC screening is in reducing costs for this disease. Screening and early diagnosis are not only important in improving the prognosis of patients with CRC but can lead to an important reduction in the cost of treating a disease that is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Spending more sooner can mean saving money later.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles

OBJECTIVE

New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers.

DESIGN

A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles.

RESULTS

Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence.

CONCLUSION

New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Pooled rates of adenoma detection by colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk individuals with positive fecal immunochemical test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks for colonoscopy in individuals positive for a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are ≥45% in men and ≥35% in women. These are based on weak, low-quality evidence. We performed a meta-analysis to ascertain the pooled ADR in FIT-positive colonoscopy.

METHODS

Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in October 2021 for studies reporting on ADR of colonoscopy in a FIT-positive population. Meta-analysis was performed by standard methodology using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² and 95% prediction interval statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-four high-quality studies that included more than 6 million asymptomatic average-risk individuals were analyzed; 2,655,345 individuals completed a screening FIT test. The pooled FIT screening rate was 69.8% (95% CI, 62.8-76.1), the pooled FIT positivity rate was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.3-6.9), and the colonoscopy completion rate was 85% (95% CI, 82.8-86.9). The pooled ADR was 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6), pooled advanced ADR was 25.3% (95% CI, 22-29), and the pooled colorectal cancer detection rate was 5.1% (95% CI, 4.4-5.9). The pooled ADR in men was 58.3% (95% CI, 52.8-63.6) and in women was 41.9% (95% CI, 36.4-47.6). The pooled ADR with qualitative FIT assessment was 67.7% (95% CI, 50.7-81), with 1-stool sample FIT was 52.8% (95% CI, 48.8-56.8), and at a cutoff threshold of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL was 52.1% (95% CI, 47-57.1). Based on time-period cumulative analysis, the ADR improved over time from 30.5% (95% CI, 24.6-37.2) to 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports the current ADR benchmarks for colonoscopy in FIT-positive individuals. Excellent pooled ADR parameters were demonstrated with qualitative assessment of 1 stool sample at a test cutoff value of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL, and ADR per endoscopist improved over time.

Epigenome-Wide DNA Methylation Profiling of Normal Mucosa Reveals HLA-F Hypermethylation as a Biomarker Candidate for Serrated Polyposis Syndrome

Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is associated with a high risk for colorectal cancer. Intense promoter hypermethylation is a frequent molecular finding in the serrated pathway and may be present in normal mucosa, predisposing to the formation of serrated lesions. To identify novel biomarkers for SPS, fresh-frozen samples of normal mucosa from 50 patients with SPS and 19 healthy individuals were analyzed by using the 850K BeadChip Technology (Infinium). Aberrant methylation levels were correlated with gene expression using a next-generation transcriptome profiling tool. Two validation steps were performed on independent cohorts: first, on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue of the normal mucosa; and second, on 24 serrated lesions. The most frequently hypermethylated genes were HLA-F, SLFN12, HLA-DMA, and RARRES3; and the most frequently hypomethylated genes were PIWIL1 and ANK3 (Δβ = 10%; P < 0.05). Expression levels of HLA-F, SLFN12, and HLA-DMA were significantly different between SPS patients and healthy individuals and correlated well with the methylation status of the corresponding differentially methylated region (fold change, >20%; r > 0.55; P < 0.001). Significant hypermethylation of CpGs in the gene body of HLA-F was also found in serrated lesions (Δβ = 23%; false discovery rate = 0.01). Epigenome-wide methylation profiling has revealed numerous differentially methylated CpGs in normal mucosa from SPS patients. Significant hypermethylation of HLA-F is a novel biomarker candidate for SPS.

Colonoscopy-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Abnormal Stool-Based Tests: A Systematic Review of Literature and Meta-analysis of Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood (gFOBT) are associated with a substantial reduction in CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate colonoscopy-related adverse events in individuals with a positive FIT or gFOBT.

METHODS

A systematic and detailed search was run in January 2021, with the assistance of a medical librarian for studies reporting on colonoscopy-related adverse events as part of organized CRC screening programs. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model, and the results were expressed for pooled proportions along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 771,730 colonoscopies were performed in patients undergoing CRC screening using either gFOBT or FIT across 31 studies. The overall pooled incidence of severe adverse events in the entire patient cohort was 0.42% (CI 0.20-0.64); I2 = 38.76%. In patients with abnormal gFOBT, the incidence was 0.2% (CI 0.1-0.3); I2 = 24.6%, and in patients with a positive FIT, it was 0.4% (CI 0.2-0.7); I2 = 48.89%. The overall pooled incidence of perforation, bleeding, and death was 0.13% (CI 0.09-0.21); I2 = 22.84%, 0.3% (CI 0.2-0.4); I2 = 35.58%, and 0.01% (CI 0.00-0.01); I2 = 33.21%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis shows that in colonoscopies performed after abnormal stool-based testing, the overall risk of severe adverse events, perforation, bleeding, and death is minimal.

Long-Term Follow-up of the Italian Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Recent reports showed that the protective effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening was maintained up to17 years, although differences were reported by sex.

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term reduction of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality after a single FS screening.

DESIGN

Parallel randomized controlled trial. (ISRCTN registry number: 27814061).

SETTING

6 centers in Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons aged 55 to 64 years expressing interest in having FS screening if invited, recruited from 1995 to 1999 and followed until 2012 (incidence) and 2014 to 2016 (mortality).

INTERVENTION

Eligible persons were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either the once-only FS screening group or control (usual care) group.

MEASUREMENTS

Incidence and mortality rate ratios (RRs) and rate differences.

RESULTS

A total of 34 272 persons (17 136 in each group) were included in the analysis; 9911 participants had screening in the intervention group. Median follow-up was 15.4 years for incidence and 18.8 years for mortality. Incidence of CRC was reduced by 19% (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93]) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, comparing the intervention with the control group, and by 33% (RR, 0.67 [CI, 0.56 to 0.81]) in the per protocol (PP) analysis, comparing participants screened in the intervention group with the control persons. Colorectal cancer mortality was reduced by 22% (RR, 0.78 [CI, 0.61 to 0.98]) in the ITT analysis and by 39% (RR, 0.61 [CI, 0.44 to 0.84]) in the PP analysis. Incidence of CRC was statistically significantly reduced among both men and women. Colorectal cancer mortality was statistically significantly reduced among men (ITT RR, 0.73 [CI, 0.54 to 0.97]) but not among women (ITT RR, 0.90 [CI, 0.59 to 1.37]).

LIMITATION

Self-selection of volunteers from the general population sample targeted for recruitment may limit generalizability.

CONCLUSION

The strong protective effect of a single FS screening for CRC incidence and mortality was maintained up to 15 and 19 years, respectively.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Italian Association for Cancer Research, Italian National Research Council, Istituto Oncologico Romagnolo, Fondo "E. Tempia," University of Milan, and Local Health Unit ASL-Torino.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

Strategies to Improve Persistent Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and screening has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. This review highlights pertinent aspects of adherence to screening including the various options available and key concepts to consider in any systematic program. Persistent adherence, which is key to an efficacious screening program, is the compliance with repeated screening tests over a period of time. A “chain of survival” mindset emphasizes the stepwise, sequential and persistent approach to screening and is a helpful concept to drive the message of persistent adherence. A framework for the patient and physician interactions that support screening intervention is examined, and various factors that impact both patient and physician adoption and screening modality recommendations are reviewed. While systems-based approaches to screening have great utility in automation and monitoring in a surveillance program, some emerging data suggests that the human touch is still an essential driver for active participation in these programs. Finally, the proportion of time concept is discussed as a useful index for monitoring persistent adherence in both individuals and populations.

Baseline Colonoscopy Findings Associated With 10-Year Outcomes in a Screening Cohort Undergoing Colonoscopy Surveillance

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes of ongoing colonoscopic screening and surveillance in a screening population. We aimed to determine the 10-year risk for advanced neoplasia (defined as adenomas ≥10mm, adenomas with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or colorectal cancer [CRC]) and assessed whether baseline colonoscopy findings were associated with long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We collected data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Study on 3121 asymptomatic veterans (50-75 years old) who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 1994 through 1997 at 13 medical centers and were then followed for 10 years or until death. We included 1915 subjects with at least 1 surveillance colonoscopy and estimated cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia by Kaplan-Meier curves. We then fit a longitudinal joint model to estimate risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination after baseline, adjusting for multiple colonoscopies within individuals.

RESULTS

Through 10 years of follow-up, there were 146 individuals among all baseline colonoscopy groups found to have at least 1 incident advanced neoplasia. The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was highest among those with baseline CRC (43.7%; 95% CI 13.0%-74.4%), followed by those with baseline advanced adenoma (AA) (21.9%; 95% CI 15.7-28.1). The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was 6.3% (95% CI 4.1%-8.5%) and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7%-5.4%) for baseline 1 to 2 small adenomas (<1cm, and without villous histology or high-grade dysplasia) and no neoplasia, respectively (log-rank P = .10). After adjusting for prior surveillance, the risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination was not significantly increased in veterans with 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline (odds ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.67-1.41) compared with veterans with no baseline neoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline screening colonoscopy findings associate with advanced neoplasia within 10 years. Individuals with only 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline have a low risk of advanced neoplasia over 10 years. Alternative surveillance strategies, could be considered for these individuals.

Colorectal cancer-screening program improves both short- and long-term outcomes: a single-center experience in Trieste

Screening programs (SC) have been proven to reduce both incidence and mortality of CRC. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent surgical treatment for CRC between 01/2011 and 01/2017. The current screening program in our region collects patients aged from 50 to 69. For this reason, out of a total of 600 patients, we compared 125 patients with CRC founded during the SC to 162 patients who presented with symptoms and were diagnosed between 50-69 years old (NO-SC). 45% patients in the SC group were diagnosed as AJCC stage I vs 27% patients in the NO-SC group; 14% vs 20% were stage II, 14% vs 26% were stage III, and 3% vs 14% were stage IV (p 0.002). We found a significant difference in surgical approach: 89% SC vs 56% NO-SC patients had laparoscopic surgery (p 0.002). In the NO-SC group, 16% patients underwent resection in an emergency setting. Only 5% patients in the SC group had postoperative complications vs 14% patients in the NO-SC group (p 0.03). We had a 2-year OS of 86%, being 95% in the SC group and 80% in the NO-SC group (p 0.002). Likewise, the whole 2-year DFS was 77%, whereas it was 90% in the SC group and 66% in the NO-SC group (p 0.002). Screening significantly improves early diagnosis and accelerated surgical treatment. We obtained earlier stages at diagnosis, a less invasive surgical approach, and lower rates of complications and emergency surgery, all this leading to an improvement in both OS and DFS.

Colorectal Cancer in the Young: Does Screening Make Sense?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended to reduce CRC mortality. This review outlines key factors to consider when recommending screening, including disease burden, screening benefits and harms, and remaining knowledge gaps.

RECENT FINDINGS

In response to increasing rates of CRC incidence among younger (age < 50 years) adults, the American Cancer Society published guidelines in May 2018 recommending average-risk CRC screening beginning at age 45 (vs. 50) years. Rates of young-onset CRC have increased in the USA since the early 1990s. However, there is very little empirical evidence of screening effectiveness in younger adults, and few studies have reported harms of routine screening in this age group. Further, we know little about the natural history of CRC in younger adults. Uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of CRC screening in younger adults suggests the benefits may be small. Precision cancer screening-or modified screening regimens based on risk-may improve the balance of screening benefits and harms beyond conventional age-based strategies.

Colonoscopy-related complications in a nationwide immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening program

Background

The Danish national screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) consists of an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) followed by colonoscopy. The Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database (DCCSD) records data on the incidence of hospital-registered complications after colonoscopy. However, the validity of these data is unknown, and the incidence of complications is potentially underreported.

Objective

To evaluate the validity of the colonoscopy complications registered in the DCCSD by using medical records as the reference. Further, to evaluate the incidence of complications leading to hospital contact.

Methods

Among 14,671 individuals with a positive iFOBT result and a colonoscopy procedure performed from March 3, 2014 to December 31, 2014, we selected 295 individuals for medical record review. We calculated sensitivity as the proportion of true complications registered in the DCCSD out of all complications found in the medical records, and the positive predictive value (PPV) as the number of true complications in the DCCSD out of all DCCSD-registered complications. On the basis of the medical record data, we calculated the incidence proportion of hospital-registered complications overall and by subtype.

Results

In total, we reviewed 286 records and found 102 individuals with at least one complication. The sensitivity of the DCCSD for any complication was 29.4% (95% CI: 20.8–39.3) and the PPV was 88.2% (95% CI: 72.6–96.7). On the basis of the medical record data, the incidence proportion of any complication after colonoscopy was 0.70% (95% CI: 0.57–0.84) and that of perforation or lesion was 0.10% (95% CI: 0.06–0.17); bleeding, 0.41% (95% CI: 0.31–0.53); post-polypectomy syndrome, 0.16% (95% CI: 0.10–0.24); and other medical complications, 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02–0.09).

Conclusion

The DCCSD has low sensitivity for complications, and improvements in data registration are warranted. The incidence proportion of any hospital-treated post-colonoscopy complication was 0.70% in 2014, which was the first year of the Danish national CRC screening program. This is within the range of complications reported by other studies.

Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations

AIM

To summarize and compare worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in order to identify similarities and disparities.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge identifying all average-risk CRC screening guideline publications within the last ten years and/or position statements published in the last 2 years. In addition, a hand-search of the webpages of National Gastroenterology Society websites, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the BMJ Clinical Evidence website, Google and Google Scholar was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen guidelines were identified. Six guidelines were published in North America, four in Europe, four in Asia and one from the World Gastroenterology Organization. The majority of guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals between ages 50 and 75 using colonoscopy (every 10 years), or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS, every 5 years) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT, mainly the Fecal Immunochemical Test, annually or biennially). Disparities throughout the different guidelines are found relating to the use of colonoscopy, rank order between test, screening intervals and optimal age ranges for screening.

CONCLUSION

Average risk individuals between 50 and 75 years should undergo CRC screening. Recommendations for optimal surveillance intervals, preferred tests/test cascade as well as the optimal timing when to start and stop screening differ regionally and should be considered for clinical decision making. Furthermore, local resource availability and patient preferences are important to increase CRC screening uptake, as any screening is better than none.

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, colon cancer incidence and mortality is declining over the past decade owing to adoption of effective screening programs. Nevertheless, in some parts of the world, CRC incidence and mortality remain on the rise, likely due to factors including “westernized” diet, lifestyle, and lack of health-care infrastructure and resources. Participation and adherence to different national screening programs remain obstacles limiting the achievement of screening goals. Different modalities are available ranging from stool based tests to radiology and endoscopy with varying sensitivity and specificity. However, the availability of these tests is limited to areas with high economic resources. Recently, FDA approved a blood-based test (Epi procolon^®) for CRC screening. This blood based test may serve to increase the participation and adherence rates. Hence, leading to increase in colon cancer detection and prevention. This article will discuss various CRC screening tests with a particular focus on the data regarding the new approved blood test. Finally, we will propose an algorithm for a simple cost-effective CRC screening program.