Gastroenterology

Gastroenterology

Volume 128, Issue 6, May 2005, Pages 1685-1695
Gastroenterology

Colon Cancer Screening in 2005: Status and Challenges

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.04.005Get rights and content

Section snippets

1990–2000: evidence and guidelines evolve to support colorectal cancer screening

In 1990, no strong evidence existed from an RCT showing that screening reduces CRC mortality. Some recommending organizations had supported it, but screening was not reimbursed or widely practiced. However, after 3 RCTs in the mid 1990s provided evidence of efficacy, a broad consensus developed among recommending organizations about performing screening and about which testing programs to recommend.2, 3, 4 Particularly important were the USPSTF’s decision in 1996 to endorse screening2 and

Implementation of any kind of colorectal cancer screening

Achieving implementation of any kind of CRC screening is a major challenge in 2005. The reasons that screening rates are low compared with those for breast cancer or cervical cancer screening are critical to understand and address, and they are receiving detailed attention from the research and policy communities; they are not discussed further here.28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 It seems likely that the current low rates will improve over time,27 building in part on lessons learned from

Beyond guidelines: forces affecting decision making in the larger environment

After guidelines have recommended screening and reimbursement has begun, other forces become prominent in a postguideline environment of decision making. In this environment, decisions are driven by considerations different from those assessed in the idealized and evidence-based process that recommending organizations use to develop guidelines.

Each of the 3 decision makers in clinical care—professional policy-making organizations, physicians, and patients—uses different sources of evidence,

Postpolypectomy surveillance

Surveillance is a separate topic whose importance will increase as screening is increasingly performed, because so many persons screened will be found to have adenomas and thus will be potentially eligible for postpolypectomy surveillance. Surveillance is the follow-up of persons thought to have an increased risk of subsequent CRC. Because 30%–50% of Americans older than 50 years have one or more adenomatous polyps, surveillance could become the most common reason for colonoscopy, involving a

Conclusions

Fifteen years ago, the primary unanswered question in this field concerned whether CRC screening was effective in reducing CRC mortality and whether screening should be implemented and reimbursed. Because that question has been answered and because guidelines and reimbursement are leading to implementation, the next set of challenges is emerging. These challenges concern making choices among different screening tests and strategies and concern details of decisions about postpolypectomy

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (84)

  • L.C. Seeff et al.

    Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?

    Gastroenterology

    (2004)
  • C. Hur et al.

    An analysis of the potential impact of computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) on colonoscopy demand

    Gastroenterology

    (2004)
  • J. Van Dam et al.

    AGA future trends reportCT colonography

    Gastroenterology

    (2004)
  • D.K. Rex et al.

    Colorectal cancer prevention 2000screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology

    Am J Gastroenterol

    (2000)
  • D.B. Nelson et al.

    Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2002)
  • G. Dafnis et al.

    Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy within a defined population in Sweden

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2001)
  • D.F. Ransohoff

    Screening colonoscopy in balance. Issues of implementation

    Gastroenterol Clin North Am

    (2002)
  • D.C. Rockey et al.

    Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopyprospective comparison

    Lancet

    (2005)
  • S. Halligan et al.

    Unbiased studies are needed before virtual colonoscopy can be dismissed

    Lancet

    (2005)
  • R. Iannaccone et al.

    Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps

    Gastroenterology

    (2004)
  • E.G. McFarland et al.

    CT colonographyprogress toward colorectal evaluation without catharsis

    Gastroenterology

    (2004)
  • D.A. Ahlquist et al.

    Colorectal cancer screening by detection of altered human DNA in stoolfeasibility of a multitarget assay panel

    Gastroenterology

    (2000)
  • D.F. Ransohoff

    Challenges and opportunities in evaluating diagnostic tests

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2002)
  • D.F. Ransohoff et al.

    Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback

    Am J Med

    (2002)
  • S. Winawer et al.

    Colorectal cancer screening and surveillanceclinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence

    Gastroenterology

    (2003)
  • K.K. Knight et al.

    Recommendations for fecal occult blood screening

    JAMA

    (1989)
  • Chapter 8screening for colorectal cancer

  • T. Byers et al.

    American Cancer Society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancerupdate 1997

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (1997)
  • J.V. Selby et al.

    A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (1992)
  • D.F. Ransohoff et al.

    Sigmoidoscopic screening in the 1990s

    JAMA

    (1993)
  • P.A. Newcomb et al.

    Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1992)
  • J.S. Mandel et al.

    Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood

    N Engl J Med

    (1993)
  • Costs and effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in the elderly—background paper, OTA-BP-H-74

    (1990)
  • J.L. Wagner et al.

    Cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in the elderly

    Ann Intern Med

    (1991)
  • R. Dobson

    Broadcast of star’s colonoscopy boosts screening

    Br Med J

    (2002)
  • P. Cram et al.

    The impact of a celebrity promotional campaign on the use of colon cancer screeningthe Katie Couric effect

    Arch Intern Med

    (2003)
  • D.A. Lieberman et al.

    Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (2000)
  • T.F. Imperiale et al.

    Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings

    N Engl J Med

    (2000)
  • T.F. Imperiale et al.

    Results of screening colonoscopy among persons 40 to 49 years of age

    N Engl J Med

    (2002)
  • Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancerbaseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial

    Lancet

    (2002)
  • D.K. Podolsky

    Going the distance—the case for true colorectal-cancer screening

    N Engl J Med

    (2000)
  • Grady D. More extensive test needed for colon cancer, studies say. New York Times July 20, 2000;A1,...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text