METHODS: 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.

This review has analysed various studies and case reports on homicide by poison from different parts of India till date. This review shows that homicidal poisoning prevalence varies from 0.3% to 3.7% having varied prevalence from different regions with no homicidal cases too. The poisons used in homicide were mainly organophosphates, aluminium phosphide, paraquat, and arsenic. No age-group or gender was spared and the perpetrators were first degree relatives.

OBJECTIVE: Screening of persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome can yield substantial benefits at acceptable costs, presuming sufficient uptake of genetic testing by first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the frequency of and factors associated with genetic testing of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands.
METHODS: We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo, PUBMED, and SCOPUS) for articles published through May 2011 reporting uptake of genetic testing by relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. Two investigators independently screened articles to determine whether they met inclusion criteria; data were collected on study population, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. A narrative, qualitative systematic review was performed.
RESULTS: We identified 1258 potentially relevant articles; 533 underwent full-text review, and 8 were included in the final analysis. Of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands, 52% or less received genetic testing. For each proband, 3.6 or fewer relatives underwent genetic testing. Demographic factors (age <50 years, female sex, parenthood, level of education, employment, participation in medical studies), psychological factors (lack of depressive symptoms), and possibly family history (greater number of relatives with cancer) were associated with uptake of genetic testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing appears to be underutilized by first-degree relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome. The clinical benefit and economic feasibility of screening persons with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome depend on optimizing family-wide uptake of genetic testing. Future research and clinical efforts should focus on ways to overcome barriers to genetic testing.