Literature DB >> 12557158

Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence.

Sidney Winawer, Robert Fletcher, Douglas Rex, John Bond, Randall Burt, Joseph Ferrucci, Theodore Ganiats, Theodore Levin, Steven Woolf, David Johnson, Lynne Kirk, Scott Litin, Clifford Simmang.   

Abstract

We have updated guidelines for screening for colorectal cancer. The original guidelines were prepared by a panel convened by the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and published in 1997 under the sponsorship of a consortium of gastroenterology societies. Since then, much has changed, both in the research rature and in the clinical context. The present report summarizes new developments in this field and suggests how they should change practice. As with the previous version, these guidelines offer screening options and encourage the physician and patient to decide together which is the best approach for them. The guidelines also take into account not only the effectiveness of screening but also the risks, inconvenience, and cost of the various approaches. These guidelines differ from those published in 1997 in several ways: we recommend against rehydrating fecal occult blood tests; the screening interval for double contrast barium enema has been shortened to 5 years; colonoscopy is the preferred test for the diagnostic investigation of patients with findings on screening and for screening patients with a family history of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; recommendations for people with a family history of colorectal cancer make greater use of risk stratification; and guidelines for genetic testing are included. Guidelines for surveillance are also included. Follow-up of postpolypectomy patients relies now on colonoscopy, and the first follow-up examination has been lengthened from 3 to 5 years for low-risk patients. If this were adopted nationally, surveillance resources could be shifted to screening and diagnosis. Promising new screening tests (virtual colonoscopy and tests for altered DNA in stool) are in development but are not yet ready for use outside of research studies. Despite a consensus among expert groups on the effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer, screening rates remain low. Improvement depends on changes in patients' attitudes, physicians' behaviors, insurance coverage, and the surveillance and reminder systems necessary to support screening programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12557158     DOI: 10.1053/gast.2003.50044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  587 in total

1.  Secondary gastrointestinal cancer in childhood cancer survivors: a cohort study.

Authors:  Tara O Henderson; Kevin C Oeffinger; John Whitton; Wendy Leisenring; Joseph Neglia; Anna Meadows; Catherine Crotty; David T Rubin; Lisa Diller; Peter Inskip; Susan A Smith; Marilyn Stovall; Louis S Constine; Sue Hammond; Greg T Armstrong; Leslie L Robison; Paul C Nathan
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Probability model for estimating colorectal polyp progression rates.

Authors:  Chaitra Gopalappa; Selen Aydogan-Cremaschi; Tapas K Das; Seza Orcun
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2010-10-05

3.  Identification of phospholipid scramblase 1 as a biomarker and determination of its prognostic value for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yung-Bin Kuo; Chung-Chuan Chan; C Allen Chang; Chung-Wei Fan; Ray-Ping Hung; Ya-Shu Hung; Kuei-Tien Chen; Jau-Song Yu; Yu-Sun Chang; Err-Cheng Chan
Journal:  Mol Med       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 6.354

4.  MR colonography without bowel cleansing or water enema: a pilot study.

Authors:  A Sambrook; D Mcateer; S Yule; P Phull
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  p53 antibodies, metallothioneins, and oxidative stress markers in chronic ulcerative colitis with dysplasia.

Authors:  Hala E Hamouda; Soha S Zakaria; Saber A Ismail; Mahmoud A Khedr; Wael W Mayah
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas D Sequist; Alan M Zaslavsky; Richard Marshall; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-23

7.  Predictors of suboptimal bowel preparation in asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Shail M Govani; Eric E Elliott; Stacy B Menees; Stephanie L Judd; Sameer D Saini; Constantinos P Anastassiades; Annette L Urganus; Suzanna J Boyce; Philip S Schoenfeld
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-09-16

8.  Global Budgets and Technology-Intensive Medical Services.

Authors:  Zirui Song; A Mark Fendrick; Dana Gelb Safran; Bruce Landon; Michael E Chernew
Journal:  Healthc (Amst)       Date:  2013-06

9.  Resource implications for a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Canada: a study of the impact on colonoscopy capacity and costs in London, Ontario.

Authors:  Agatha Lau; James C Gregor
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 10.  Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: molecular genetics, genetic counseling, diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Henry T Lynch; Jane F Lynch; Patrick M Lynch; Thomas Attard
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007-11-13       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.