Latest & greatest articles for colon cancer screening

The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted the latest trusted evidence on colon cancer screening or other clinical topics then use Trip today.

This page lists the very latest high quality evidence on colon cancer screening and also the most popular articles. Popularity measured by the number of times the articles have been clicked on by fellow users in the last twelve months.

What is Trip?

Trip is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice and/or care.

Trip has been online since 1997 and in that time has developed into the internet’s premier source of evidence-based content. Our motto is ‘Find evidence fast’ and this is something we aim to deliver for every single search.

As well as research evidence we also allow clinicians to search across other content types including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.

For further information on Trip click on any of the questions/sections on the left-hand side of this page. But if you still have questions please contact us via jon.brassey@tripdatabase.com

Top results for colon cancer screening

1. Multicomponent Interventions to Improve Screening for Breast, Cervical or Colorectal Cancer

Multicomponent Interventions to Improve Screening for Breast, Cervical or Colorectal Cancer Oregon Health Authority : Evidence-based Reports Blog : Health Evidence Review Commission : State of Oregon menu Toggle Main Menu Main Navigation close search Search search Submit You are here: Evidence-based Reports Blog menu Site Navigation Evidence-based Reports Blog Full Width Column 1 Select Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Acellular Dermal Matrix for Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction Compliance (...) ={ListId}'); return false;} if(pageid == 'audit') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+ '/_layouts/15/Reporting.aspx' +'?Category=Auditing&backtype=item&ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;} if(pageid == 'config') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+ '/_layouts/15/expirationconfig.aspx' +'?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;}}, null); 0x0 0x1 ContentType 0x01 898 BlogTopic Multicomponent Interventions to Improve Screening for Breast, Cervical or Colorectal Cancer

2020 Oregon Health Evidence Review Commission

2. Identifying Features of Screening Approaches for People at Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer

of 60 • History of inflammatory bowel disease • Suspected or confirmed hereditary CRC syndrome • Suspected or confirmed history of abdominal or pelvic radiation • Family history and genetic counselling referrals for hereditary syndromes Identifying Features of Screening Approaches for People at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer 12 Evidence >> Insight >> Action Evidence source Document characteristics Average CRC risk Increased CRC risk Screening criteria Features of approaches for managing CRC (...) (recommended as standard screening test) • Start screening at age 50 • 10-year interval • FS or an annual FOBT can be used as screening approach if a patient refuses a colonoscopy • Adults with FDR or SDR who had CRC before age 50 have an increased chance of developing CRC (and other familial risk) • Adults with multiple (= 3) or large (> 1 cm) adenomas • Adults with inflammatory bowel disease • Adults with documented or suspected hereditary colorectal cancer • Start screening with colonoscopy 10 years

2020 McMaster Health Forum

3. Expert guidance on screening for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers

Expert guidance on screening for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers Expert guidance on screening for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers | American Gastroenterological Association Login here Gastro.org Gastro.org AGA Journals AGA Journals AGA’s peer-reviewed journals offer high-quality research on current advances in GI and hepatology. Access the latest research from Gastroenterology , Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , Cellular (...) team of doctors having a discussion Fellows & Early Career Resources designed for early career gastroenterologists. Search August 25, 2020 Expert guidance on screening for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers Due to modest risk estimates and limited data, screening is only recommended when BRCA1/2 carriers also have a family history of colorectal cancer or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin Share on email Drs. Sonia S

2020 American Gastroenterological Association Institute

4. An RCT of Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Without Recent Primary Care

An RCT of Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Without Recent Primary Care An RCT of Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Without Recent Primary Care - PubMed This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features! Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable. COVID-19 is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation. Get the latest public (...) new results Optional text in email: Save Cancel Create a file for external citation management software Create file Cancel Your RSS Feed Name of RSS Feed: Number of items displayed: Create RSS Cancel RSS Link Copy Actions Cite Share Permalink Copy Page navigation Am J Prev Med Actions . 2020 Jul;59(1):41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.02.014. An RCT of Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Without Recent Primary Care , , , , , Affiliations Expand Affiliations 1 Corporal

2020 EvidenceUpdates

5. Comparative Evaluation of Participation and Diagnostic Yield of Colonoscopy vs Fecal Immunochemical Test vs Risk-Adapted Screening in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Interim Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (TARGET-C)

Comparative Evaluation of Participation and Diagnostic Yield of Colonoscopy vs Fecal Immunochemical Test vs Risk-Adapted Screening in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Interim Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (TARGET-C) Comparative Evaluation of Participation and Diagnostic Yield of Colonoscopy vs Fecal Immunochemical Test vs Risk-Adapted Screening in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Interim Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (TARGET-C) - PubMed This site needs (...) Permalink Copy Page navigation Am J Gastroenterol Actions . 2020 Aug;115(8):1264-1274. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000624. Comparative Evaluation of Participation and Diagnostic Yield of Colonoscopy vs Fecal Immunochemical Test vs Risk-Adapted Screening in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Interim Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (TARGET-C) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Affiliations Expand Affiliations 1 Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center

2020 EvidenceUpdates

6. Is 45 really the new 50 in colorectal cancer screening?

Is 45 really the new 50 in colorectal cancer screening? Tools for Practice is proudly sponsored by the Alberta College of Family Physicians (ACFP). ACFP is a provincial, professional voluntary organization, representing more than 4,800 family physicians, family medicine residents, and medical students in Alberta. Established over sixty years ago, the ACFP strives for excellence in family practice through advocacy, continuing medical education and primary care research. www.acfp.ca June 29, 2020 (...) Is 45 really the new 50 in colorectal cancer screening? Clinical Question: Should we lower the age that average risk patients commence colorectal cancer screening from 50 to 45? Bottom Line: In developed countries, the incidence of colorectal cancer in persons under 50 years old has increased by 20-30% in the last 20 years. However, the absolute risk increase is only 1-4 per 100,000 persons. Screening average risk patients under age 50 should not be encouraged at this time. Evidence: • Population

2020 Tools for Practice

7. Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After a Single Negative Screening Colonoscopy. (Abstract)

Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After a Single Negative Screening Colonoscopy. Current guidelines recommend a 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies, but evidence is limited.To assess the long-term risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and death from CRC after a high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy.Observational study.Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program.Average-risk individuals aged 50 to 66 years who had a single negative colonoscopy (...) (no neoplastic findings).Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of CRC after high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy included a complete examination, with adequate bowel preparation, performed by endoscopists with an adenoma detection rate of 20% or greater.Among 165 887 individuals followed for up to 17.4 years, CRC incidence (0.28 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.30]) and mortality (0.19 [CI, 0.16 to 0.21]) were 72% and 81% lower

2020 Annals of Internal Medicine

8. Barriers of colorectal cancer screening in rural USA: a systematic review. (Full text)

Barriers of colorectal cancer screening in rural USA: a systematic review. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower in rural areas in the USA. To guide the design of interventions to improve CRC screening, a systematic review was conducted to identify CRC screening barriers for rural populations.A search was conducted in four literature databases - Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus - for articles from 1998 to 2017 that examine CRC screening barriers in rural areas. This review (...) their association with CRC screening status. Age, marital status, and race/ethnicity were the most frequently reported factors associated with CRC screening in rural areas. Lack of prevention attitude toward cancer, perceived lack of privacy, shortage of specialists, and distance to test facilities were reported as rural-specific barriers for CRC screening.Main barriers for CRC screening at both the individual and healthcare system level are identified in rural areas and they are in line with those found

2020 Rural and remote health PubMed abstract

9. Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. (Full text)

Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Mailed outreach promoting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a stool blood test kit may increase participation, but magnitude and consistency of benefit of this intervention strategy is uncertain. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mailed outreach offering stool tests to usual care (...) care, with a number needed to invite estimated to be 3.6. Similar outcomes were observed across subgroups. Overall body of evidence was at moderate quality. Mailed outreach offering a gFOBT or FIT is associated with a large and consistent increase in CRC screening completion and should be considered for more widespread implementation for improving screening rates nationwide.

2020 Digestive diseases and sciences PubMed abstract

10. Peer Support as an Ideal Solution for Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. (Abstract)

Peer Support as an Ideal Solution for Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Low implementation of colorectal cancer screening in ethnic minorities is the main reason for racial and ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality. Peer support is widely used for promoting healthcare in ethnic minorities. However, whether it improves their acceptance to undergo the screening remains controversial.We performed (...) participants met the eligibility criteria. Peer support intervention can increase colorectal cancer screening implementation and raise awareness and intention to undergo the screening in ethnic minorities more significantly than fecal occult blood test outreach, print, and usual care. Subgroup analysis showed that peer support intervention achieved great results in Asian Americans and intervention of peer counseling.The results of subgroup analysis had substantial heterogeneity, which may decrease

2020 Diseases of the colon and rectum

11. Breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Abstract)

Breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Individuals with diabetes are at increased risk of developing and dying from cancer. Evidence-based guidelines recommend universal screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer; however, evidence on the uptake of these tests in individuals with diabetes is mixed. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantify the association between diabetes and participation in breast, cervical (...) ), cervical (Papanicolaou smear) or colorectal (faecal and endoscopic tests) cancer screening uptake included as an outcome. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the most-adjusted estimates for each cancer site.Thirty-seven studies (25 cross-sectional, 12 cohorts) were included, with 27 studies on breast, 19 on cervical and 18 on colorectal cancer screening. Having diabetes was associated with significantly lower likelihood of breast (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.77, 0.90]) and cervical

2020 Diabetologia

12. Number of Adenomas Removed and Colorectal Cancers Prevented in Randomized Trials of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening. (Full text)

estimated NNR for the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian) trial was 74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 56-110), for the NORCCAP (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention) trial was 71 (95% CI, 44-174), for the SCORE (Screening for Colon Rectum) trial was 27 (95% CI, 14-135), and for the UKFSST (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial) was 36 (95% CI, 28-52). The combined estimate (meta-analysis) of NNR was 52 (95% CI, 36-93) assuming heterogeneity (P for heterogeneity = .014). DTA estimates (...) Number of Adenomas Removed and Colorectal Cancers Prevented in Randomized Trials of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening. Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with sigmoidoscopy reduces CRC incidence by detecting and removing adenomas. The number needed to screen is a measure of screening efficiency, but is not directly associated with adenoma removal. We propose the following 2 new metrics for quantifying the relationship between adenoma removal and CRC prevented: number of adenomas needed

2020 Gastroenterology PubMed abstract

13. Role of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the screening of digestive tract cancers in Europ

leadtounderuseorpoorresourcingofhealthfacilities involved inprovidingscreeningservices, with consequent failuretofully realizethe potential benefits to patients. Methods In 2017, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Governing Board established a task force (Public Affairs Working Group led by A.S.) to produce a Position Statement concerning the value of endoscopy for screening purposes in GI cancers. The most prevalent digestive cancers (esophageal squamous cellcarcinoma,esophagealadenocarcinoma,gastric carcinoma (...) relative with BEor esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]). – For pancreatic cancer screening, endoscopic ultra- sound may be used in selected high-risk patients such as those with a strong family history and/or genetic suscep- tibility. ABBREVIATIONS BE Barrett’sesophagus CT computed tomography EAC esophageal adenocarcinoma ESGE European Societyof Gastrointestinal Endoscopy EUS endoscopic ultrasound FIT fecal immunochemical testing FOBT fecal occult blood test GERD gastroesophageal reflux disease GI

2020 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

14. Prevalence of colorectal cancer in cryptogenic pyogenic liver abscess patients. Do they need screening colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Abstract)

Prevalence of colorectal cancer in cryptogenic pyogenic liver abscess patients. Do they need screening colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cryptogenic pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) could result due to compromised colonic mucosal barrier in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Association of PLA and CRC is unclear. Evidence is weak and limited to small sized studies. As a result, the need for colonoscopy in PLA patients is debatable.We conducted a comprehensive search (...) of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through January 2019) to identify studies that reported on the prevalence of CRC in PLA patients. Our goals were to evaluate the pooled rate of CRC in patients with cryptogenic PLA.12 studies were included in the analysis. 18,607 patients were diagnosed with PLA in study group and 60,130 patients were in control group. 63% were males in the age range of 56-94 years. 90.5% of the colonic lesions were left sided and 93.1% were

2020 Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver

15. Effectiveness of tailored communication intervention in increasing colonoscopy screening rates amongst first-degree relatives of individuals with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Full text)

Effectiveness of tailored communication intervention in increasing colonoscopy screening rates amongst first-degree relatives of individuals with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ensuring that the first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer are properly screened is critical to reduce disease incidence and mortality rate. Tailored communication intervention is a promising method to induce health-related behavioural changes. However, evidence of the effects (...) of tailored communication interventions on the screening rate of populations at an increased familial risk of colorectal cancer is lacking. This review aimed to identify, appraise and examine existing evidence of the effectiveness of tailored communication interventions in increasing colonoscopy screening rates amongst the first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Twelve electronic English and Chinese databases [Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central

2020 International journal of nursing studies PubMed abstract

16. Whole-blood DNA Methylation Markers for Risk Stratification in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. (Full text)

Whole-blood DNA Methylation Markers for Risk Stratification in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. DNA methylation profiles within whole-blood samples have been reported to be associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence and might enable risk stratification for CRC. We systematically reviewed and summarized studies addressing the association of whole-blood DNA methylation markers and risk of developing CRC or its precursors. We searched PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge (...) to identify relevant studies published until 12th November 2018. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study population characteristics, candidate genes, methylation measurement methods, methylation levels of patients in comparison to healthy controls, p-values, and odds ratios of the markers. Overall, 19 studies reporting 102 methylation markers for risk assessment of colorectal neoplasms met our inclusion criteria. The studies mostly used Methylation Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction (MS-PCR

2020 Cancers PubMed abstract

17. A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice. (Full text)

A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice. Background: We examined colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention effectiveness, through the effect sizes associated with: (1) screening modality, (2) intervention level (e.g., client-directed), and (3) intervention component (e.g. client reminders) within published CRCS intervention systematic reviews (SRs). Methods (...) : A search of peer-reviewed CRCS SRs that were written in English was employed utilizing five databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, rTIPS, PubMed, and PsycINFO EBSCOHOST. SRs that included CRCS interventions with a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, or single arm design were eligible. Data on effect sizes by screening modality, intervention level, and intervention component were extracted and synthesized. Results: There were 16 eligible CRCS intervention SRs that included 116 studies

2020 Frontiers in public health PubMed abstract

18. Diagnostic accuracy of fecal calprotectin for screening patients with colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. (Full text)

Diagnostic accuracy of fecal calprotectin for screening patients with colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Fecal calprotectin (FC) is reported to have a broad diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (CRC). Therefore, we explored the diagnostic value of FC for CRC using meta-analytical techniques to substantiate the assertion.An electronic search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of FC for CRC. The sensitivities (...) under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84), whereas the diagnostic value of FC for colorectal adenoma was relatively inferior (area under the curve, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.51-0.59; diagnostic odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91-1.78).The results imply that the FC test, as currently implemented, cannot be recommended for CRC detection.

2020 The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology PubMed abstract

19. The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review. (Abstract)

The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review. Colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death and an important cause of morbidity. The natural history of carcinogenesis, via the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, permits screening, which reduces the relative risk of mortality by up to 16%. The efficacy of a screening programme is limited by the growth of interval colorectal cancers (...) performing the index operation was the most consistent endoscopy factor associated with development of interval cancers. The impact of setting, volume and bowel preparation varied between papers.Interval cancers reduce the efficacy of colorectal screening programmes. Ensuring the quality of the endoscopy process, specifically by increasing the ADR of practitioners, is crucial to the reduction of the rate of interval cancers.

2020 International journal of colorectal disease

20. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Abstract)

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy are the most commonly used strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. We aimed to compare their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in CRC screening in an average-risk population.PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Risk ratio (RR (...) ) was used to evaluate the differences in detection rates of colorectal neoplasia between FIT and colonoscopy groups. A random-effects model was used to pool RRs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy.Six randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies were included. The participation rate in the FIT group was higher than that in the colonoscopy group (41.6% vs 21.9%). In the intention-to-treat analysis

2020 Gastrointestinal endoscopy