Literature DB >> 27305422

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Jennifer S Lin1, Margaret A Piper1, Leslie A Perdue1, Carolyn M Rutter2, Elizabeth M Webber1, Elizabeth O'Connor1, Ning Smith1, Evelyn P Whitlock1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS: Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27305422     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  244 in total

1.  Invitation to Screening Colonoscopy in the Population at Familial Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Alexander Bauer; Jürgen F Riemann; Thomas Seufferlein; Max Reinshagen; Stephan Hollerbach; Ulrike Haug; Susanne Unverzagt; Stephanie Boese; Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach; Patrick Jahn; Thomas Frese; Michael Harris; Margarete Landenberger
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Geographic Variation in Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancer Among Older Adults.

Authors:  Jennifer L Moss; Siddhartha Roy; Chan Shen; Joie D Cooper; Robert P Lennon; Eugene J Lengerich; Alan Adelman; William Curry; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-07-01

3.  How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia Boyd; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Nancy L Schoenborn
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Early Adoption of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Lila J Finney Rutten; Robert M Jacobson; Patrick M Wilson; Debra J Jacobson; Chun Fan; John B Kisiel; Seth Sweetser; Sidna M Tulledge-Scheitel; Jennifer L St Sauver
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 5.  Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.360

6.  External Validation of Risk Prediction Models Incorporating Common Genetic Variants for Incident Colorectal Cancer Using UK Biobank.

Authors:  Catherine L Saunders; Britt Kilian; Deborah J Thompson; Luke J McGeoch; Simon J Griffin; Antonis C Antoniou; Jon D Emery; Fiona M Walter; Joe Dennis; Xin Yang; Juliet A Usher-Smith
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2020-02-18

7.  Outreach and Inreach Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latinos at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2015-2018.

Authors:  Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Marielena Rojas; Silvia Mercado; Adriana M Bearse; Jasmine Camacho; Manuel Song Lopez; Fatima Muñoz; Shawne O'Connell; Lin Liu; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 8.  Clinical and Genetic Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer in Persons under 50 Years of Age: A Review.

Authors:  Williamson B Strum; C Richard Boland
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Colorectal cancer screening in the United States: Trends from 2008 to 2015 and variation by health insurance coverage.

Authors:  Janet S de Moor; Robin A Cohen; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Susan A Sabatino; K Robin Yabroff; Stacey Fedewa; Richard Lee; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cheryl Altice; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Machine-learning model to predict the cause of death using a stacking ensemble method for observational data.

Authors:  Chungsoo Kim; Seng Chan You; Jenna M Reps; Jae Youn Cheong; Rae Woong Park
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2021-06-12       Impact factor: 4.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.