Journal Article

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

Heen, Anja Fog, Lytvyn, Lyubov, Guyatt, Gordon, Anderson, Joseph C, Quinlan, Casey, Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris, Almadi, Majid Abdulrahman, Vandvik, Per Olav, Agoritsas, Thomas, Auer, Reto, Fuchs, Jonathan M, McKinnon, Annette, Helsingen, Lise M, Siemieniuk, Reed A C, Kalager, Mette, Jodal, Henriette C, Corley, Douglas A, Usher-Smith, Juliet A, Bretthauer, Michael, Murphy, Silje Bjerkelund, Qaseem, Amir

2019

Overview

AbstractUpdate to this articleIn October 2022, three years after the initial publication of this guideline, the first trial of the effect of colonoscopy screening was published. The implications of this new evidence for the current recommendations were evaluated by the guideline panel in January 2023. The guideline panel judged that this new evidence did not alter the current recommendations, and therefore that an update of the following guideline was not needed (see table 2 for details).Clinical questionRecent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: “Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?”Current practiceNumerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.RecommendationsThese recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option’s practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.The evidenceOverall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens, and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.Understanding the recommendationBased on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

• Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD
• Subject: Age / Aged / Cancer / Cancer screening / Cancer therapies / Clinical medicine / Clinical practice guidelines / Clinical trials / Colon / Colonoscopy / Colonoscopy - standards / Colonoscopy - statistics & numerical data / Colorectal cancer / Colorectal carcinoma / Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis / Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology / Decision making / Early Detection of Cancer - methods / Early Detection of Cancer - standards / Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data / Evidence-based medicine / Female / Humans / Incidence / Life span / Male / Mass Screening - methods / Mass Screening - standards / Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data / Medical screening / Medicare / Middle Aged / Mortality / Occult Blood / Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care - statistics & numerical data / Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data / Population / Practice / Shared decision making / Sigmoidoscopy / Sigmoidoscopy - standards / Sigmoidoscopy - statistics & numerical data / Systematic review / Time Factors / Women / Working groups