Optimizing patient risk stratification for colonoscopy screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer: The role for linked data

No abstract available for this article

Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements

Colorectal cancer screening: Why immunochemical fecal occult blood tests may be the best option

Abstract Background:There are many test options available for colorectal cancer screening. The choice of test relates to the objectives of those offering or considering screening. Discussion:While all screening programs aim to detect disease early in order to improve the length and/or quality of life for the individual, some organizations and individuals prefer screening tests that offer the opportunity for cancer prevention. Others favor maximizing participation or the opportunity for shared decision-making, including discussion of information on test quality and availability. We propose three additional objectives for screening: minimizing harms, optimizing economic efficiency and maximizing equity of access to screening. Summary:Applying these objectives to colorectal cancer screening, we advocate the use of immunochemical FOBTs as the preferred screening strategy, as it satisfies all three of these important objectives. Keywords:Screening objectives, Colorectal cancer, Fecal occult blood testing, Harm minimization, Equity, Economic efficiency, Prevention, Participatio

Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018

BACKGROUND: The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, a national coalition of public, private, and voluntary organizations, has recently announced an initiative to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018. The authors evaluated the potential public health benefits of achieving this goal. METHODS: The authors simulated the 1980 through 2030 United States population of individuals aged 50 to 100 years using microsimulation modeling. Test-specific historical screening rates were based on National Health Interview Survey data for 1987 through 2013. The effects of increasing screening rates from approximately 58% in 2013 to 80% in 2018 were compared to a scenario in which the screening rate remained approximately constant. The outcomes were cancer incidence and mortality rates and numbers of CRC cases and deaths during short-term follow-up (2013-2020) and extended follow-up (2013-2030). RESULTS: Increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2018 would reduce CRC incidence rates by 17% and mortality rates by 19% during short-term follow-up and by 22% and 33%, respectively, during extended follow-up. These reductions would amount to a total of 277,000 averted new cancers and 203,000 averted CRC deaths from 2013 through 2030. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving the goal of increasing the uptake of CRC screening in the United States to 80% by 2018 may have a considerable public health impact by averting approximately 280,000 new cancer cases and 200,000 cancer deaths within <20 years

Is Conventional Colonoscopy More Effective Than Computed Tomography Colonography in the Screening of Colorectal Cancer Among Young African American Adults?

Healthcare journalist Brenda Goodman’s article on CNN Health on October 10, 2022, about a new study examining the effectiveness of colonoscopies, essentially concluded that the efficacy of conventional colonoscopy is in question. This research sought to establish whether conventional colonoscopy is more effective than computed tomography (CT) colonography in screening colorectal cancer among young African American adults. The researcher employed a literature review and a case-control research design to gather data on the subject. Data were collected from literature, the SEER database, the CDC, and the American Cancer Society websites. The study sample consisted of African Americans between the ages of 35 and 50 with colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy. Analysis using a case-control design found an odds ratio of 4.9, which indicated that African Americans were 4.9 times more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer when their doctors used conventional colonoscopy than when they used CT colonography. The findings suggest that traditional colonoscopy is more effective than CT colonography in the screening of colorectal cancer

Optimizing screening with faecal immunochemical test for both sexes - Cost-effectiveness analysis from Finland

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The AuthorsA faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening pilot was introduced in Finland in 2019 with sex-specific screening strategies. This study aims to model cost-effectiveness of sex-specific strategies for the whole population, and to assess whether the current strategies are optimal. We developed separate MISCAN-Colon models, including different FIT performances, for the Finnish men and women using the first-year data of the FIT screening pilot. We evaluated 180 FIT strategies varying in FIT cut-off, screening interval, age to start, and age to stop screening, and compared them to no-screening by sex. We used incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to identify the optimal strategy after combining all male and female strategies and restricting the analysis by costs and referral rate to diagnostic colonoscopies. Offering annual FIT screening with a cut-off of 25 μg/g at 50–79 years in men and with a cut-off of 10 μg/g at 55–69 years in women was optimal. This combined strategy prevented 28% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and 55% of CRC deaths with acceptable costs (ICER = 9000€/life-years gained). Screening at the current target age of 60–74 years was suboptimal for both sexes. Among strategies with the same target age and interval for both sexes, expected benefits from optimal screening were lower but still reasonable. Our results support a wider age range of screening in men, and a lower cut-off for a positive test in women when restrictions on colonoscopy capacity and costs are in place. National FIT screening program should start at younger age.Peer reviewe

Stool Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality and is widely recommended. However, despite the demonstrated benefits of screening and ongoing efforts to improve screening rates, a large percentage of the population remains unscreened. Noninvasive stool based tests offer great opportunity to enhance screening uptake. The evidence supporting the use of both fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and stool DNA (sDNA) has been growing rapidly and both tests are now commercially available for use. Other stool biomarkers (eg, RNA and protein based) are also actively under study both for use independently and as adjuncts to the currently available tests. This mini review provides current, state of the art knowledge about noninvasive stool based screening. It includes a more detailed examination of those tests currently in use (ie, FIT and sDNA) but also provides an overview of stool testing options under development (ie, protein and RNA)