Literature DB >> 17040627

Screening tests for colorectal cancer: a menu of options remains relevant.

James E Allison1, Michael Lawson.   

Abstract

Until the early 1990s, no evidence was available to show that screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by any means actually saved lives. Subsequently, sufficient evidence for the efficacy of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy allowed the US Preventive Services Task Force to publish guidelines for CRC screening. Since that time the major organizations in the United States concerned with screening guidelines have recommended a menu of screening test options including FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus FOBT, barium enema, and colonoscopy. No organization, except for the American College of Gastroenterology, has designated any one of these options as "preferred." Nevertheless, the lay press and many gastroenterology opinion leaders have encouraged Americans to have only one test--colonoscopy. In this review we discuss the rationale for caution in designating one screening test as "the best" and present information on how new stool and serum tests can be used effectively to screen for CRC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17040627     DOI: 10.1007/s11912-006-0079-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep        ISSN: 1523-3790            Impact factor:   5.075


  57 in total

1.  Sigmoidoscopy costs and the limits of altruism.

Authors:  N J Shaheen; D F Ransohoff
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Fecal Adnab-9 binding as a risk marker for colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Mei Yuan; XiaoPing Xhang; YiaLi Leu; Yi Xu; Nadeem Ullah; Michael Lawson; Martin Tobi
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2006-04-08       Impact factor: 8.679

3.  Detecting colorectal cancer in stool with the use of multiple genetic targets.

Authors:  S M Dong; G Traverso; C Johnson; L Geng; R Favis; K Boynton; K Hibi; S N Goodman; M D'Allessio; P Paty; S R Hamilton; D Sidransky; F Barany; B Levin; A Shuber; K W Kinzler; B Vogelstein; J Jen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-06-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001--testing for early lung cancer detection.

Authors:  R A Smith; A C von Eschenbach; R Wender; B Levin; T Byers; D Rothenberger; D Brooks; W Creasman; C Cohen; C Runowicz; D Saslow; V Cokkinides; H Eyre
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Quantitation of DNA from exfoliated colonocytes isolated from human stool surface as a novel noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  A Loktionov; I K O'Neill; K R Silvester; J H Cummings; S J Middleton; R Miller
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice.

Authors:  D K Rex; E Y Rahmani; J H Haseman; G T Lemmel; S Kaster; J S Buckley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 7.  [Pyruvate kinase M2 (tumor M2-PK) as a screening tool for colorectal cancer (CRC). A review of current published data].

Authors:  N Ewald; M Toepler; A Akinci; H U Kloer; R G Bretzel; P D Hardt
Journal:  Z Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Natural history of untreated colonic polyps.

Authors:  S J Stryker; B G Wolff; C E Culp; S D Libbe; D M Ilstrup; R L MacCarty
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Colon cancer specific nuclear matrix protein alterations in human colonic adenomatous polyps.

Authors:  Gisela Brünagel; Robert E Schoen; Robert H Getzenberg
Journal:  J Cell Biochem       Date:  2004-02-01       Impact factor: 4.429

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Cecal stampede: the headlong rush for screening colonoscopy: a position paper.

Authors:  Michael J Lawson; Martin Tobi
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-10-13       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  The impact of screening on colorectal cancer mortality and incidence: has it really made a difference?

Authors:  Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  Serum tests for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  James Creeden; Frank Junker; Sabine Vogel-Ziebolz; Douglas Rex
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 4.074

4.  Analytical sensitivity and stability of DNA methylation testing in stool samples for colorectal cancer detection.

Authors:  Linda J W Bosch; Sandra Mongera; Jochim S Terhaar Sive Droste; Frank A Oort; Sietze T van Turenhout; Maarten T Penning; Joost Louwagie; Chris J J Mulder; Manon van Engeland; Beatriz Carvalho; Gerrit A Meijer
Journal:  Cell Oncol (Dordr)       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 6.730

Review 5.  New era of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Maysaa El Zoghbi; Linda C Cummings
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-03-10

6.  The influence of sociocultural factors on colonoscopy and FOBT screening adherence among low-income Hispanics.

Authors:  Rachel C Shelton; Lina Jandorf; Jennie Ellison; Cristina Villagra; Katherine N DuHamel
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2011-08

7.  Evaluation of a card collection-based faecal immunochemical test in screening for colorectal cancer using a two-tier reflex approach.

Authors:  Callum G Fraser; Catriona M Mathew; N Ashley G Mowat; John A Wilson; Francis A Carey; Robert J C Steele
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-02-19       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 8.  Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options.

Authors:  Iyad A Issa; Malak Noureddine
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  The preference for an endoscopist specific sex: a link between ethnic origin, religious belief, socioeconomic status, and procedure type.

Authors:  Adi Lahat; Yehudith Assouline-Dayan; Lior H Katz; Herma H Fidder
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 2.711

10.  Cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in families of patients with germline MUTYH mutations.

Authors:  Maartje Nielsen; Frederik J Hes; Hans F A Vasen; Wilbert B van den Hout
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2007-07-02       Impact factor: 2.103

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.