Explore the vast range of titles available.

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

The proportion of a physician's screening colonoscopies that detect at least one adenoma (the adenoma detection rate) is a quality measure. In this study involving 136 gastroenterologists, the adenoma detection rate was inversely associated with patients' risk of interval colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is a commonly used primary or follow-up screening test to detect colorectal cancer, 1 – 3 the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States. 4 , 5 Colonoscopy can reduce the risk of death from colorectal cancer through detection of tumors at an earlier, more treatable stage and through removal of precancerous adenomas. 3 , 6 Conversely, failure to detect adenomas during colonoscopy may increase the subsequent risk of cancer. The adenoma detection rate, the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by a physician that detect at least one histologically confirmed colorectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma, has been recommended as a quality benchmark . . .

ObjectiveScreening colonoscopy's effectiveness in reducing colorectal cancer mortality risk in community populations is unclear, particularly for right-colon cancers, leading to recommendations against its use for screening in some countries. This study aimed to determine whether, among average-risk people, receipt of screening colonoscopy reduces the risk of dying from both right-colon and left-colon/rectal cancers.DesignWe conducted a nested case–control study with incidence-density matching in screening-eligible Kaiser Permanente members. Patients who were 55–90 years old on their colorectal cancer death date during 2006–2012 were matched on diagnosis (reference) date to controls on age, sex, health plan enrolment duration and geographical region. We excluded patients at increased colorectal cancer risk, or with prior colorectal cancer diagnosis or colectomy. The association between screening colonoscopy receipt in the 10-year period before the reference date and colorectal cancer death risk was evaluated while accounting for other screening exposures.ResultsWe analysed 1747 patients who died from colorectal cancer and 3460 colorectal cancer-free controls. Compared with no endoscopic screening, receipt of a screening colonoscopy was associated with a 67% reduction in the risk of death from any colorectal cancer (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52). By cancer location, screening colonoscopy was associated with a 65% reduction in risk of death for right-colon cancers (aOR=0.35, CI 0.18 to 0.65) and a 75% reduction for left-colon/rectal cancers (aOR=0.25, CI 0.12 to 0.53).ConclusionsScreening colonoscopy was associated with a substantial and comparably decreased mortality risk for both right-sided and left-sided cancers within a large community-based population.

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide and screening is useful for early diagnosis. This Review outlines currently available CRC screening options worldwide (including colonoscopy and stool-based tests). Key features of each modality and new screening tests under development are described.

The Multi-Society Task Force, in collaboration with invited experts, developed guidelines to assist health care providers with the appropriate provision of genetic testing and management of patients at risk for and affected with Lynch syndrome as follows: Figure 1 provides a colorectal cancer risk assessment tool to screen individuals in the office or endoscopy setting; Figure 2 illustrates a strategy for universal screening for Lynch syndrome by tumor testing of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer; Figures 3,4,5,6 provide algorithms for genetic evaluation of affected and at-risk family members of pedigrees with Lynch syndrome; Table 10 provides guidelines for screening at-risk and affected persons with Lynch syndrome; and Table 12 lists the guidelines for the management of patients with Lynch syndrome. A detailed explanation of Lynch syndrome and the methodology utilized to derive these guidelines, as well as an explanation of, and supporting literature for, these guidelines are provided.

BackgroundScreening outreach programs using population health management principles offer services uniformly to all eligible persons, but racial/ethnic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening patterns in such programs are not well known.ObjectiveTo examine the association between race/ethnicity and the receipt of CRC screening and timely follow-up of positive results before and after implementation of a screening program.DesignRetrospective cohort study of screen-eligible individuals at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California community-based integrated healthcare delivery system (2004–2013).SubjectsA total of 868,934 screen-eligible individuals 51–74 years of age at cohort entry, which included 662,872 persons in the period before program implementation (2004–2006), 654,633 during the first 3 years after implementation (2007–2009), and 665,268 in the period from 4 to 7 years (2010–2013) after program implementation.InterventionA comprehensive system-wide long-term effort to increase CRC that included leadership alignment, goal-setting, and quality assurance through a PHM approach, using mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) along with offering screening at office visits.Main MeasuresDifferences over time and by race/ethnicity in up-to-date CRC screening (overall and by test type) and timely follow-up of a positive screen. Race/ethnicity categories included non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiple races.Key ResultsFrom 2004 to 2013, age/sex-adjusted CRC screening rates increased in all groups, including 35.2 to 81.1 % among whites and 35.6 to 78.0 % among blacks. Screening rates among Hispanics (33.1 to 78.3 %) and Native Americans (29.4 to 74.5 %) remained lower than those for whites both before and after program implementation. Blacks, who had slightly higher rates before program implementation (adjusted rate ratio [RR] = 1.04, 99 % CI: 1.02–1.05), had lower rates after program implementation (RR for period from 4 to 7 years = 0.97, 99 % CI: 0.96–0.97). There were also substantial improvements in timely follow-up of positive screening results.ConclusionsIn this screening program using core PHM principles, CRC screening increased markedly in all racial/ethnic groups, but disparities persisted for some groups and developed in others, which correlated with levels of adoption of mailed FIT.

Background The Oakland Score predicts risk of 30-day adverse events among hospitalized patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) possibly identifying patients who may be safe for discharge. The Oakland Score has not been studied among emergency department (ED) patients with LGIB. The Oakland Score composite outcome includes re-bleeding, defined as additional blood transfusion requirements and/or a further decrease in hematocrit (Hct) >/= 20% after 24 h in clinical stability; red blood cell transfusion; therapeutic intervention to control bleeding, including surgery, mesenteric embolization, or endoscopic hemostasis; in-hospital death, all cause; and re-admission with further LGIB within 28 days. Prediction variables include age, sex, previous LGIB admission, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and hemoglobin concentration, and scores range from 0 to 35 points, with higher scores indicating greater risk. Methods Retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years old) patients with a primary ED diagnosis of LGIB across 21 EDs from March 1st, 2018, through March 1st, 2020. We excluded patients who were more likely to have upper gastrointestinal bleeding (esophago-gastroduodenoscopy without LGIB evaluation), patients who left against medical advice or prior to ED provider evaluation, ED patients without active health plan membership, and patients with incomplete Oakland Score variables. We assessed predictive accuracy by reporting the area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios at multiple clinically relevant thresholds. Results We identified 8,283 patients with LGIB, 52% were female, mean age was 68, 49% were non-White, and 27% had an adverse event. The AUROC for predicting an adverse event was 0.85 (95% CI 0.84–0.86). There were 1,358 patients with an Oakland Score of