Literature DB >> 31578196

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

Lise M Helsingen1,2,3, Per Olav Vandvik4,5, Henriette C Jodal6,2,3, Thomas Agoritsas7,8, Lyubov Lytvyn8, Joseph C Anderson9,10,11, Reto Auer12,13, Silje Bjerkelund Murphy14, Majid Abdulrahman Almadi15,16, Douglas A Corley17,18, Casey Quinlan19,20,21, Jonathan M Fuchs22, Annette McKinnon23, Amir Qaseem24, Anja Fog Heen25, Reed A C Siemieniuk8, Mette Kalager6,2,3, Juliet A Usher-Smith26, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar27, Michael Bretthauer6,2,3, Gordon Guyatt8.   

Abstract

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 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 PRACTICE: Numerous 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. RECOMMENDATIONS: These 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 CREATED: A 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 EVIDENCE: Overall 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 RECOMMENDATION: Based 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. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31578196     DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l5515

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  33 in total

1.  Is 45 the new 50 in colorectal cancer screening?

Authors:  Paul Fritsch; Clarence Wong; Michael R Kolber
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Bernt-Peter Robra
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2021

3.  The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?

Authors:  Michael Bretthauer; Lise M Helsingen; Mette Kalager; Per-Olav Vandvik; Thomas Agoritsas; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  The authors respond to "The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?"

Authors:  Barbara Bielawska; Catherine Dubé
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Colorectal cancer screening: It is not time for a radical shift.

Authors:  Barbara Bielawska; Catherine Dubé
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate for Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rates.

Authors:  Leonardo Zorron Cheng Tao Pu; Gurfarmaan Singh; Khizar Rana; Masanao Nakamura; Takeshi Yamamura; Sudarshan Krishnamurthi; Amanda Ovenden; Suzanne Edwards; Andrew Ruszkiewicz; Yoshiki Hirooka; Mitsuhiro Fujishiro; Alastair D Burt; Rajvinder Singh
Journal:  Gastrointest Tumors       Date:  2020-02-11

7.  Cancer Screening: No Longer the Default.

Authors:  Michael Hochman; Pieter Cohen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Are Primarily Based on Low-Moderate-Quality Evidence.

Authors:  Simcha Weissman; Alexander Goldowsky; Muhammad Aziz; Tej I Mehta; Sachit Sharma; Megan Lipcsey; Trent Walradt; Umair Iqbal; Sameh Elias; Joseph D Feuerstein
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  What Should We Recommend for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Adults Aged 75 and Older?

Authors:  Anuj Arora; Sami A Chadi; Tyler Chesney
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 3.677

10.  Decision aids linked to evidence summaries and clinical practice guidelines: results from user-testing in clinical encounters.

Authors:  Anja Fog Heen; Per Olav Vandvik; Linn Brandt; Frankie Achille; Gordon Henry Guyatt; Elie A Akl; Shaun Treewek; Thomas Agoritsas
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.