Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History

Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff

One goal of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to prevent CRC incidence by removing precancerous colonic polyps, which are detected in up to 50% of screening examinations. Yet, the lifetime risk of CRC is 3.9%-4.3%, so it is clear that most of these individuals with polyps would not develop CRC in their lifetime. It is, therefore, a challenge to determine which individuals with polyps will benefit from follow-up, and at what intervals. There is some evidence that individuals with advanced polyps, based on size and histology, benefit from intensive surveillance. However, a large proportion of individuals will have small polyps without advanced histologic features (ie, "nonadvanced"), where the benefits of surveillance are uncertain and controversial. Demand for surveillance will further increase as more polyps are detected due to increased screening uptake, recent United States recommendations to expand screening to younger individuals, and emergence of polyp detection technology. We review the current understanding and clinical implications of the natural history, biology, and outcomes associated with various categories of colon polyps based on size, histology, and number. Our aims are to highlight key knowledge gaps, specifically focusing on certain categories of polyps that may not be associated with future CRC risk, and to provide insights to inform research priorities and potential management strategies. Optimization of CRC prevention programs based on updated knowledge about the future risks associated with various colon polyps is essential to ensure cost-effective screening and surveillance, wise use of resources, and inform efforts to personalize recommendations.

Benefit-Harm Analysis for Informed Decision Making on Participating in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVES

To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons.

METHODS

The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle.

RESULTS

CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

METHODS

This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in the Geriatric Population

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Our national guidelines regarding screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer recommend individualized discussions with patients 75-85 years of age. This review explores the complex decision-making that surrounds these discussions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite updated guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, the guidance for patients 75 years of age or older remains unchanged. Studies exploring the risks to colonoscopy in this population, patient preferences, life expectancy calculators and additional studies in the subpopulation of inflammatory bowel disease patients provide points of consideration to aid in individualized discussions. The benefit-risk discussion for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 75 years old warrants further guidance to develop best practice. To craft more comprehensive recommendations, additional research with inclusion of such patients is needed.

Colon Cancer Screening and the End of Life: Is Age Just a Number?

Age is the strongest risk factor for colorectal cancer. Although there is updated guidance for the age at which to start screening, there is little guidance for individuals or their medical teams on how to decide when to stop. Current recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force and other societies focus primarily on age. For patients older than 85 years, guidelines discourage screening because the harms largely outweigh benefits. Although at a population level, the overall benefit of screening in older individuals decreases, one must individualize the recommendation based on comorbidities, functional status, screening history, and gender-not solely base it on age. Patient and caregiver preferences must also be thoroughly explored. Current models struggle with incorporating other colorectal cancer risk factors such as family history, previous adenomas, and modality of previous screening into recommendations and simulations, but are likely to improve with machine learning and whole electronic health record prediction-based approaches.

Personalized colorectal cancer screening: study protocol of a mixed-methods study on the effectiveness of tailored intervals based on prior f-Hb concentration in a fit-based colorectal cancer screening program (PERFECT-FIT)

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 this study is to evaluate the yield, feasibility, acceptability and (cost-) effectiveness of personalized CRC screening through tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations. This knowledge may be of guidance for health policy makers and may provide evidence for implementing personalized CRC screening in The Netherlands and/or other countries using FIT as screening modality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05423886, June 21, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05423886.

Should we screen for colorectal cancer in people aged 75 and over? A systematic review - collaborative work of the French geriatric oncology society (SOFOG) and the French federation of digestive oncology (FFCD)

BACKGROUND

We have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations.

METHODS

PUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines.

RESULTS

Most benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80-85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case.

CONCLUSION

The current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75-80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.

Incident Cancer Risk and Signatures Among Older MUTYH Carriers: Analysis of Population-Based and Genomic Cohorts

MUTYH carriers have an increased colorectal cancer risk in case-control studies, with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) as the presumed mechanism. We evaluated cancer risk among carriers in a prospective, population-based cohort of older adults. In addition, we assessed if cancers from carriers demonstrated mutational signatures (G:C>T:A transversions) associated with early LOH. We calculated incident risk of cancer and colorectal cancer among 13,131 sequenced study participants of the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly cohort, stratified by sex and adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol use, BMI, polyp history, history of cancer, and aspirin use. MUTYH carriers were identified among 13,033 participants in The Cancer Genome Atlas and International Cancer Genome Consortium, and somatic signatures of cancers were analyzed. Male MUTYH carriers demonstrated an increased risk for overall cancer incidence [multivariable HR, 1.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-2.68; P = 0.038] driven by increased colorectal cancer incidence (multivariable HR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.42-8.78; P = 0.007), as opposed to extracolonic cancer incidence (multivariable HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.81-2.44; P = 0.229). Female carriers did not demonstrate increased risk of cancer, colorectal cancer, or extracolonic cancers. Analysis of mutation signatures from cancers of MUTYH carriers revealed no significant contribution toward early mutagenesis from widespread G:C>T:A transversions among gastrointestinal epithelial cancers. Among cancers from carriers, somatic transversions associated with base-excision repair deficiency are uncommon, suggestive of diverse mechanisms of carcinogenesis in carriers compared with those who inherit biallelic MUTYH mutations.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

Despite absence of loss of heterozygosity in colorectal cancers, elderly male MUTYH carriers appeared to be at increased of colorectal cancer.

Effect of Chronic Comorbidities on Follow-up Colonoscopy After Positive Colorectal Cancer Screening Results: A Population-Based Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are colorectal cancer screening tests used to identify individuals requiring further investigation with colonoscopy. Delayed colonoscopy after positive FOBT (FOBT+) is associated with poorer cancer outcomes. We assessed the effect of comorbidity on colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+.

METHODS

Population-based healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, were linked to assemble a cohort of 50-74-year-old individuals with FOBT+ results between 2008 and 2017. The associations between comorbidities and colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+ were examined using multivariable cause-specific hazard regression models.

RESULTS

Of 168,701 individuals with FOBT+, 80.5% received colonoscopy within 12 months. In multivariable models, renal failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.82), heart failure (HR 0.77, CI 0.75-0.80), and serious mental illness (HR 0.88, CI 0.85-0.92) were associated with the lowest colonoscopy rates, compared with not having each condition. The number of medical conditions was inversely associated with colonoscopy uptake (≥4 vs 0: HR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.69; 3 vs 0: HR 0.75, CI 0.72-0.78; and 2 vs 0: HR 0.87, CI 0.85-0.89). Having both medical and mental health conditions was associated with a lower colonoscopy uptake relative to no comorbidity (HR 0.88, CI 0.87-0.90).

DISCUSSION

Persons with medical and mental health conditions had lower colonoscopy rates after FOBT+ than those without these conditions. Better strategies are needed to optimize colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in individuals with comorbidities.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Updates on age to start and stop colorectal cancer screening: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Associations between comorbidities and advanced stage diagnosis of lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comorbidities and advanced stage diagnosis (ASD) are both associated with poorer cancer outcomes, but the association between comorbidities and ASD is poorly understood. We summarized epidemiological evidence on the association between comorbidities and ASD of selected cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed and Web of Science databases up to June 3rd, 2021 for studies assessing the association between comorbidities and ASD of lung, breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Also, potential variations in the associations between comorbidities and ASD by cancer type were investigated using random-effects meta-regression. Thirty-seven studies were included in this review, including 8,069,397 lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients overall. The Charlson comorbidity index score was positively associated with ASD (stages III-IV) of breast cancer but was inversely associated with ASD of lung cancer (p_interaction = 0.004). Regarding specific comorbidities, diabetes was positively associated with ASD (OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 1.09-1.26), whereas myocardial infarction was inversely associated with ASD (OR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.75-0.95). The association between renal disease and ASD differed by cancer type (p_interaction < 0.001). A positive association was found with prostate cancer (OR = 2.02, 95%CI = 1.58-2.59) and an inverse association with colorectal cancer (OR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.70-1.00). In summary, certain comorbidities (e.g., diabetes) may be positively associated with ASD of several cancer types. It needs to be clarified whether closer monitoring for early cancer signs or screening in these patients is reasonable, considering the problem of over-diagnosis particularly relevant in patients with short remaining life expectancy such as those with comorbidities. Also, evaluation of the cost-benefit relationship of cancer screening according to the type and severity of comorbidity (rather than summary scores) may be beneficial for personalized cancer screening in populations with chronic diseases.

Risk-stratified strategies in population screening for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been demonstrated to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. However, besides such benefits, CRC screening is also associated with potential harmful effects. In an ideal world, screening would only be directed to the small proportion of the population that might potentially benefit. Risk‐based screening can be seen as a first step towards this ideal world, by redistributing screening resources from low‐risk to high‐risk individuals. In theory, this should result in scarce resources being used in individuals who benefit most, while intensity of screening is reduced in individuals who benefit less, hence improving the benefit‐harm ratio among all invitees. Available strategies that have been proposed for risk‐based CRC screening include using information on age, sex, prior screening history, lifestyle and/or genetic information. Implementation of risk‐based screening requires careful consideration of reliable risk prediction models, participation with screening and informed decision‐making. While it is important to recognise the limitations of current approaches, available evidence suggests that it might be feasible to start planning the introduction of tailored strategies within screening programmes. Implementing risk‐based screening based on age, sex and prior screening history alone would already represent a substantial improvement over current uniform screening approaches. We propose that it is time that screening programmes start there and continue striving towards more comprehensive approaches embedding primary prevention as an effective approach to lower risk for everyone.

Association of Screening Lower Endoscopy With Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Adults Older Than 75 Years

Importance

Evidence indicates that screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) beginning at 50 years of age can detect early-stage CRC and premalignant neoplasms (eg, adenomas) and thus prevent CRC-related mortality. At present, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends continuing CRC screening until 75 years of age and individualized decision-making for adults older than 75 years, while accounting for a patient's overall health and screening history. However, scant data exist to support these recommendations.

Objective

To examine the association of lower gastrointestinal tract screening endoscopy with the risk of CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality in older US adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study of health care professionals in the US included data from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) from January 1, 1988, through January 31, 2016, for the HPFS and June 30, 2016, for the NHS. Data were analyzed from May 8, 2019, to July 9, 2020.

Exposures

History of screening sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (routine/average risk or positive family history) to 75 years of age and after 75 years of age, assessed every 2 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incidence of CRC and CRC-related mortality confirmed by National Death Index, medical records, and pathology reports.

Results

Among 56 374 participants who reached 75 years of age during follow-up (36.8% men and 63.2% women), 661 incident CRC cases and 323 CRC-related deaths were documented. Screening endoscopy after 75 years of age was associated with reduced risk of CRC incidence (multivariable hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74) and CRC-related mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.78), regardless of screening history. The HR comparing screening with nonscreening after 75 years of age was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.50-0.89) for CRC incidence and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.38-0.87) for CRC-related mortality among participants who underwent screening endoscopy before 75 years of age, and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) for CRC incidence and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.43-0.93) for CRC-related mortality among participants without a screening history. However, screening endoscopy after 75 years of age was not associated with risk reduction in CRC death among participants with cardiovascular disease (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.59-2.35) or significant comorbidities (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.57-2.43).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, endoscopy among individuals older than 75 years was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality. These data support continuation of screening after 75 years of age among individuals without significant comorbidities.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.