Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force
- PMID: 27305422
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force
Erratum in
-
Incomplete URL.JAMA. 2016 Aug 2;316(5):545. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.9941. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27483079 No abstract available.
-
Error in Table Row Alignment and No. of Participants.JAMA. 2016 Oct 4;316(13):1412. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13819. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27701639 No abstract available.
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.
Comment in
-
Colorectal Cancer Screening.JAMA. 2016 Oct 25;316(16):1714. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13846. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27784085 No abstract available.
-
Colorectal Cancer Screening.JAMA. 2016 Oct 25;316(16):1715. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13849. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27784086 No abstract available.
-
Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations-Reply.JAMA. 2016 Oct 25;316(16):1717. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14930. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27784091 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Jun. Report No.: 14-05203-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Jun. Report No.: 14-05203-EF-1. PMID: 27441328 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 May. Report No.: 20-05271-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 May. Report No.: 20-05271-EF-1. PMID: 34097369 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.JAMA. 2021 May 18;325(19):1978-1998. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.4417. JAMA. 2021. PMID: 34003220
-
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Oct. Report No.: 08-05-05124-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Oct. Report No.: 08-05-05124-EF-1. PMID: 20722162 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2595-609. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.6828. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27305518 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Unveiling the Value of Meta-Analysis in Disease Prevention and Control: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Oct 5;60(10):1629. doi: 10.3390/medicina60101629. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024. PMID: 39459416 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer: A Review of the Literature.Cancers (Basel). 2024 Aug 1;16(15):2746. doi: 10.3390/cancers16152746. Cancers (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39123473 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A novel dual-target Septin9 methylation assay for improved detection of early-stage colorectal cancer and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.BMC Cancer. 2024 Jul 30;24(1):916. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-12645-4. BMC Cancer. 2024. PMID: 39080571 Free PMC article.
-
Barriers in early detection of colorectal cancer and exploring potential solutions.World J Clin Oncol. 2024 Jul 24;15(7):811-817. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v15.i7.811. World J Clin Oncol. 2024. PMID: 39071472 Free PMC article.
-
Construction of a new prognostic model for colorectal cancer based on bulk RNA-seq combined with The Cancer Genome Atlas data.Transl Cancer Res. 2024 Jun 30;13(6):2704-2720. doi: 10.21037/tcr-23-2281. Epub 2024 Jun 20. Transl Cancer Res. 2024. PMID: 38988915 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
