暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: This review aims to summarize the different colorectal cancer guidelines for average-risk and high-risk individuals from various countries.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search regarding guidelines, consensus recommendations, or position statements about colorectal cancer screening published within the last 10 years (1st January 2012 to 27th August 2022), was performed at EBSCOhost, JSTOR, PubMed, ProQuest, SAGE, and ScienceDirect.
RESULTS: A total of 18 guidelines were included in this review. Most guidelines recommended screening between 45 and 75 years for average-risk individuals. Recommendations regarding colorectal cancer screening in high-risk individuals were more varied and depended on the risk factor. For high-risk individuals with a positive family history of colorectal cancer or advanced colorectal polyp, screening should begin at age 40. Some frequently suggested screening modalities in order of frequency are colonoscopy, FIT, and CTC. Furthermore, several screening intervals were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years for average-risk and every 5-10 years for high-risk individuals, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk individuals, and CTC every five years for all individuals.
CONCLUSIONS: All individuals with average-risk should undergo colorectal cancer screening between 45 and 75. Meanwhile, individuals with higher risks, such as those with a positive family history, should begin screening at age 40. Several recommended screening modalities were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years in average-risk and every 5-10 years in high-risk, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk, and CTC every five years.

暂无摘要。

In May 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force began recommending initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 45 (vs. 50) years.
We estimated prevalence of colorectal cancer screening (by colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, or stool-based tests) in adults ages 50 to 75 years using data from the National Health Interview Survey in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018. For each survey year, we estimated prevalence by age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, and health insurance. We also compared increases in prevalence of screening from 2000 to 2018 in 5-year age groups (50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, and 70-75 years).
Overall, prevalence of colorectal cancer screening increased from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018. Screening prevalence in 2018 was lowest for age 50 to 54 years (47.6%), Hispanics (56.5%), Asians (57.1%), and participants with less than a high school degree (53.6%), from low-income families (56.6%), or without insurance (39.7%). Increases in prevalence over time differed by five-year age group. For example, prevalence increased from 28.2% in 2000 to 47.6% in 2018 (+19.4%; 95% CI, 13.1-25.6) for age 50 to 54 years but from 46.4% to 78.0% (+31.6%; 95% CI, 25.4%-37.7%) for age 70 to 75 years. This pattern was consistent across race/ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, and health insurance.
Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening remains low in adults ages 50 to 54 years.
As new guidelines are implemented, care must be taken to ensure screening benefits are realized equally by all population groups, particularly newly eligible adults ages 45 to 49 years. See related commentary by Brawley, p. 1671.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) added multitarget stool DNA and computed tomography colonography (CTC) as accepted colorectal cancer screening modalities to the already recommended tests: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. The aim of our study was to determine trends in screening after the USPSTF update, with the effect of additional tests on the use of existing colorectal cancer screening modalities and overall screening rates.
METHODS: We prospectively compared monthly colorectal cancer overall screening rates and the mean total numbers of patients screened by multitarget stool DNA, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and FIT 6 months prior to the new USPSTF guidelines until 30 months after.
RESULTS: At completion of the study, 72,202 patients were eligible for screening. The overall rate of eligible patients screened for colorectal cancer did not change (80.9% vs 81.3%; P = 0.287). There was a significant increase in the percent of patients screened with multitarget stool DNA (1.6% to 15.6%; P = .001) and a significant decrease in the percent of patients screened using CTC (3.8 % to 1.5%; P = .004), FIT (9.3% to 4.9%; P = .003), and sigmoidoscopy (2.4% to 1.5%, P = .024). There was a nonsignificant decrease in the percent use of screening colonoscopy, from 82.9 % to 76.5% (P = .313).
CONCLUSIONS: While the overall colorectal cancer screening rate did not increase after the USPSTF update with additional recommended screening tests, practice patterns did change with a shift in the type of screening test used.

OBJECTIVE: The age at onset, incidence, and mortality rate of colorectal cancer varies among racial groups being highest in African Americans. This increased risk led to the recommendation to begin screening at the age of 45 years. Whether the recommendation for screening of African Americans at an earlier age was implemented is unknown.
METHODS: We used data from the Cancer Control Supplement of National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted in the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 to analyze demographic data and use of colorectal screening (colonoscopy, stool heme testing, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography) among the US population between the ages of 45-49 years.
RESULTS: Data on colorectal screening was available from 6740 individuals; 16.5% were African Americans. Screening test use among African Americans in 2005, 2010, and 2015 was similar to use in Whites (i.e., 15.4% (95% CI 11.4-19.4), 28.4% (95% CI 19.3-30.4) and 20.2% (95% CI 14.8-25.5) vs. 16.9% (95% CI 15.1-18.6), 19.3% (95% CI 16.9-21.7), and 21.4% (95% CI 18.6-24.2) in 2005, 2010 and 2015, respectively. Observed screening test use rates may largely be accounted for by diagnostic exams.
CONCLUSIONS: The recommendation for earlier colorectal screening of African Americans has not yet resulted in increased test utilization. These results emphasize the need for multidisciplinary actions to inform and implement public health policy.

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.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD).
METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated.
RESULTS: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.

BACKGROUND: Managing the growing demand for colonoscopies is challenging.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic performance of National and Victorian colonoscopy triage guidelines and potential redistribution of triage categories.
METHODS: This is a diagnostic validation study comparing colonoscopy triage guidelines against a reference colonoscopy dataset. Participants were a reference dataset of 2378 colonoscopies from 1 October 2014 to 30 June 2016. Comparison with triage categorisation determined using National Cancer Council Australia guidelines; Victorian triage guidelines; Optimal Cancer Care Pathways recommendations. Main outcome measures were as follows: (i) proportion of colonoscopies assigned to each triage category; (ii) detection rate (proportion of cancers assigned to triage Category 1); and (iii) conversion rate (proportion of triage Category 1 colonoscopies that diagnose a cancer).
RESULTS: After adjusting for data absent in referrals, the National and Victorian guidelines reduced the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies compared with the reference triage (National 76.3% vs 58.6%; 95% CI for difference 15.0-20.3%, P < 0.0001. Victorian 76.3% vs 66.3%; 95% CI for difference 7.4-12.6%, P < 0.0001). Victorian guidelines were associated with the highest detection rate (91.4%) and a conversion rate of 5.4% although the number of cancers limited the power to detect significant differences on these metrics. There was a higher proportion of unclassifiable colonoscopies using the National guidelines than the Victorian ones due to their focus on symptomatic indications.
CONCLUSIONS: The Victorian guidelines could reduce the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies by 10% without reducing conversion or detection rates. This would require improvements in the quality of referrals and ordering faecal occult blood tests in 6% of symptomatic patients.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the USA, and screening tests are underutilized. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of individuals at average risk who utilized a recommended initial screening test in a universal healthcare coverage system.
This is a retrospective cohort study of active duty and retired military members as well as civilian beneficiaries of the Military Health System. Individuals born from 1960 to 1962 and eligible for full benefits on their 50th birthday were evaluated. Military rank or rank of benefits sponsor was used to determine socioeconomic status. Adherence to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for initial colorectal cancer screening was determined using \"Current Procedural Terminology\" and \"Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System\" codes for colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, fecal occult blood test, and fecal immunohistochemistry test. Average risk individuals who obtained early screening ages 47 to 49 were also identified.
This study identified 275,665 individuals at average risk. Of these, 105,957 (38.4%) adhered to screening guidelines. An additional 19,806 (7.2%) individuals were screened early. Colonoscopy (82.7%) was the most common screening procedure. Highest odds of screening were associated with being active duty military (odds ratio [OR] 3.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.43 to 3.85), having highest socioeconomic status (OR 2.37, 95% CI 2.31 to 2.44), and having managed care insurance (OR 4.36, 95% CI 4.28 to 4.44).
Universal healthcare coverage does not ensure initial colorectal cancer screening utilization consistent with guidelines no does it eliminate disparities.