Literature DB >> 12118972

Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Michael Pignone1, Melissa Rich, Steven M Teutsch, Alfred O Berg, Kathleen N Lohr.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening tests for adults at average risk. DATA SOURCES: Recent systematic reviews; Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd edition; and focused searches of MEDLINE from 1966 through September 2001. The authors also conducted hand searches, reviewed bibliographies, and consulted context experts to ensure completeness. STUDY SELECTION: When available, the most recent high-quality systematic review was used to identify relevant articles. This review was then supplemented with a MEDLINE search for more recent articles. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted information from the final set of studies into evidence tables, and a second reviewer checked the tables for accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: For average-risk adults older than 50 years of age, evidence from multiple well-conducted randomized trials supported the effectiveness of fecal occult blood testing in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates compared with no screening. Data from well-conducted case-control studies supported the effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and possibly colonoscopy in reducing colon cancer incidence and mortality rates. A nonrandomized, controlled trial examining colorectal cancer mortality rates and randomized trials examining diagnostic yield supported the use of fecal occult blood testing plus sigmoidoscopy. The effectiveness of barium enema is unclear. Data are insufficient to support a definitive determination of the most effective screening strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening reduces death from colorectal cancer and can decrease the incidence of disease through removal of adenomatous polyps. Several available screening options seem to be effective, but the single best screening approach cannot be determined because data are insufficient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12118972     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-137-2-200207160-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  220 in total

1.  Splenic rupture: a case of massive hemoperitoneum following therapeutic colonoscopy.

Authors:  Daniel Murariu; Sarah Takekawa; Nancy Furumoto
Journal:  Hawaii Med J       Date:  2010-06

2.  [Colorectal cancer in Germany. Means for prevention and early detection: implications for laiety and physicians].

Authors:  A Eickhoff; C Maar; B Birkner; J F Riemann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 3.  CT screening: a trade-off of risks, benefits, and costs.

Authors:  M G Myriam Hunink; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 4.  [The importance of rectoscopy and colonoscopy in Internal Medicine].

Authors:  A Eickhoff; J F Riemann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 0.743

5.  Barriers to colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing in a predominantly minority urban population: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Corey H Brouse; Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Celia Shmukler; Alfred I Neugut; Steven Shea
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Prostate and colon cancer screening messages in popular magazines.

Authors:  Mira L Katz; Stacey Sheridan; Michael Pignone; Carmen Lewis; Jamila Battle; Claudia Gollop; Michael O'Malley
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Detection of K-ras gene mutation in fecal samples from elderly large intestinal cancer patients and its diagnostic significance.

Authors:  Jun Wan; Zi-Qi Zhang; Wei-Di You; Hua-Kui Sun; Jian-Ping Zhang; Ya-Hong Wang; Yong-He Fu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Screening for colorectal cancer: established and emerging modalities.

Authors:  Nikhil Pawa; Tan Arulampalam; John D Norton
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 46.802

9.  A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy.

Authors:  María Elena Martínez; John A Baron; David A Lieberman; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Ruiyun Jiang; Dennis J Ahnen; John H Bond; Timothy R Church; Douglas J Robertson; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Elizabeth T Jacobs; David S Alberts; E Robert Greenberg
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 10.  Screening for cancer: valuable or not?

Authors:  Frank L Meyskens
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.