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

44. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer 2

) is a panel of expert gastroenterologists representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Th e MSTF, like others, has long endorsed systematic off ers of CRC screening to average-risk persons (persons without a high-risk family history of colorectal neoplasia) beginning at age 50 years, with general evidence supporting screening reviewed in previous publications ( 1 ). Th is publication updates (...) cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The ? rst-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT

2017 American College of Gastroenterology

45. Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

. Robertson, MD, MPH 9 Indianapolis, Indiana; Seattle, Washington; Baltimore, Maryland; Norfolk, Virginia; San Diego, San Francisco, Walnut Creek, California; Portland, Oregon; White River Junction, Vermont, USA This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Soci- ety for Gastrointestinal (...) Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer GIE SPECIAL ARTICLE Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Douglas K. Rex, MD, 1 C. Richard Boland, MD, 2 Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS, 3 Francis M. Giardiello, MD, 4 David A. Johnson, MD, 5 Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, 6 Theodore R. Levin, MD, 7 David Lieberman, MD, 8 Douglas J

2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

46. Recommendations on fecal immunochemical testing to screen for colorectal neoplasia: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer

Recommendations on fecal immunochemical testing to screen for colorectal neoplasia: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer GIE SPECIAL ARTICLE Recommendations on fecal immunochemical testing to screen for colorectal neoplasia: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer Douglas J. Robertson, 1,2, * Jeffrey K. Lee, 3, * C. Richard Boland, 4 Jason A. Dominitz, 5 Francis M. Giardiello, 6 David A. Johnson, 7 Tonya Kaltenbach (...) for the detection of cancer and advanced adenoma has been determined across a range of populations (Table 3). The PPV is a function of both the inherent sensitivity of the test and disease prevalence in the population studied. The PPV of FIT for cancer ranged from 2.9% to 7.8% and for advanced neoplasia ranged from 33.9% to 54%. A pos- itive FIT result signi?cantly increased the yield of colonos- copy for these important outcomes relative to a screening colonoscopy, in which cancer (0.5%–1%) and advanced

2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

47. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

the blood vessel pattern (and the histologic features) of an adenoma. The white arrows point to non-dysplastic portions of this sessile serrated polyp. ( F ), A sessile serrated polyp with invasive cancer; white arrows designate the residual sessile serrated polyp, whereas yellow arrows indicate the ulcerated malignant portion of the lesion. This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents (...) Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer - Gastroenterology Email/Username: Password: Remember me Search AGA Journals Search Terms Search within Search Volume 153, Issue 1, Pages 307–323 To read this article in full, please review your options for gaining access

2017 American Gastroenterological Association Institute

48. Modelling study: In simulation modelling, there are multiple ways to effectively screen for colorectal cancer

Modelling study: In simulation modelling, there are multiple ways to effectively screen for colorectal cancer In simulation modelling, there are multiple ways to effectively screen for colorectal cancer | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our . Log in using your username and password For personal (...) accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? Search for this keyword Search for this keyword Main menu Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? You are here In simulation modelling, there are multiple ways to effectively screen for colorectal cancer Article Text Therapeutics/Prevention Modelling study In simulation modelling, there are multiple

2017 Evidence-Based Medicine

49. Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review. (Abstract)

Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Screening can reduce CRC mortality and incidence, and numerous screening options, although available, complicate informed decision making. This review provides evidence-based tools for primary care physicians to identify patients with higher-than-average-risk and engage patients in informed decision making about CRC (...) screening options.Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2 methods have been shown in randomized clinical trials to reduce mortality: fecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Of the 8 programs, screenings using the fecal immunochemical test annually and colonoscopy every 10 years are now the most commonly used tests in the United States and among the most effective

2016 JAMA

50. Harnessing the Question-Behavior Effect to Enhance Colorectal Cancer Screening in an mHealth Experiment Full Text available with Trip Pro

Harnessing the Question-Behavior Effect to Enhance Colorectal Cancer Screening in an mHealth Experiment To assess whether asking questions about a future behavior changes this behavior (i.e., the question-behavior effect) when applied to a population-level intervention to enhance colorectal cancer screening.In 2013, text-message reminders were sent to a national sample of 50 000 Israeli women and men aged 50 to 74 years following a fecal occult blood test invitation. Participants were (...) in the different group comparisons from 0.03 to 0.06.The question-behavior effect appears to be modestly effective in colorectal cancer screening, but the absolute number of potential screenees may translate into a clinically significant health promotion change.

2016 EvidenceUpdates

51. Tailoring choice between colonoscopy versus sigmoidoscopy for population-based colorectal cancer screening in Chinese patients: a prospective colonoscopy study. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Tailoring choice between colonoscopy versus sigmoidoscopy for population-based colorectal cancer screening in Chinese patients: a prospective colonoscopy study.

2016 Lancet

52. Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy to Prevent Colorectal Cancer Among Medicare Beneficiaries Aged 70 to 79 Years: A Prospective Observational Study. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy to Prevent Colorectal Cancer Among Medicare Beneficiaries Aged 70 to 79 Years: A Prospective Observational Study. No randomized, controlled trials of screening colonoscopy have been completed, and ongoing trials exclude persons aged 75 years or older. The Medicare program, however, reimburses screening colonoscopy without an upper age limit.To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of screening colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) in persons aged (...) 70 to 74 and those aged 75 to 79 years.Large-scale, population-based, prospective study. The observational data were used to emulate a target trial with 2 groups: colonoscopy screening and no screening.United States.1 355 692 Medicare beneficiaries (2004 to 2012) aged 70 to 79 years at average risk for CRC who used Medicare preventive services and had no previous diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopies in the past 5 years.8-year risk for CRC and 30-day risk for adverse events.In beneficiaries

2016 Annals of Internal Medicine

53. A randomised comparison of two faecal immunochemical tests in population-based colorectal cancer screening (Abstract)

A randomised comparison of two faecal immunochemical tests in population-based colorectal cancer screening Colorectal cancer screening programmes are implemented worldwide; many are based on faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). The aim of this study was to evaluate two frequently used FITs on participation, usability, positivity rate and diagnostic yield in population-based FIT screening.Comparison of two FITs was performed in a fourth round population-based FIT-screening cohort. Randomly (...) selected individuals aged 50-74 were invited for FIT screening and were randomly allocated to receive an OC -Sensor (Eiken, Japan) or faecal occult blood (FOB)-Gold (Sentinel, Italy) test (March-December 2014). A cut-off of 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (ie, 50 ng Hb/mL buffer for OC-Sensor and 59 ng Hb for FOB-Gold) was used for both FITs.In total, 19 291 eligible invitees were included (median age 61, IQR 57-67; 48% males): 9669 invitees received OC-Sensor and 9622 FOB-Gold; both tests were

2016 EvidenceUpdates Controlled trial quality: uncertain

54. Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme (Abstract)

Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme Miss rate of polyps has been shown to be substantially lower with full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) compared with standard forward-viewing (SFV) colonoscopy in a tandem study at per polyp analysis. However, there is uncertainty on whether FUSE is also associated with a higher detection rate of colorectal neoplasia, especially advanced lesions, in per patient analysis.Consecutive (...) subjects undergoing colonoscopy following a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) by experienced endoscopists and performed in the context of a regional colorectal cancer population-screening programme were randomised between colonoscopy with either FUSE or SFV colonoscopy in seven Italian centres. Randomisation was stratified by gender, age group and screening history. Primary outcomes included detection rates of advanced adenomas (A-ADR), adenomas (ADR) and sessile-serrated polyps (SSPDR).Of 741

2016 EvidenceUpdates Controlled trial quality: uncertain

55. Financial Incentives for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Comparative Effectiveness Trial (Abstract)

would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening completion in a low-income, uninsured population.We conducted a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial among primary care patients, aged 50-64 years, not up-to-date with CRC screening served by a large, safety net health system in Fort Worth, Texas. Patients were randomly assigned to mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach (n=6,565), outreach plus a $5 incentive (n=1,000), or outreach plus a $10 incentive (n=1,000). Outreach included (...) Financial Incentives for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Comparative Effectiveness Trial Offering financial incentives to promote or "nudge" participation in cancer screening programs, particularly among vulnerable populations who traditionally have lower rates of screening, has been suggested as a strategy to enhance screening uptake. However, effectiveness of such practices has not been established. Our aim was to determine whether offering small financial incentives

2016 EvidenceUpdates Controlled trial quality: uncertain

56. Emerging stool-based and blood-based non-invasive DNA tests for colorectal cancer screening: The importance of cancer prevention in addition to cancer detection Full Text available with Trip Pro

Emerging stool-based and blood-based non-invasive DNA tests for colorectal cancer screening: The importance of cancer prevention in addition to cancer detection Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can be undertaken utilizing a variety of distinct approaches, which provides both opportunities and confusion. Traditionally, there has often been a trade-off between the degree of invasiveness of a screening test and its ability to prevent cancer, with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and optical (...) colonoscopy (OC) at each end of the spectrum. CT colonography (CTC), although currently underutilized for CRC screening, represents an exception since it is only minimally invasive, yet provides accurate evaluation for advanced adenomas. More recently, the FDA approved a multi-target stool DNA test (Cologuard) and a blood-based test (Epi proColon) for average-risk CRC screening. This commentary will provide an overview of these two new non-invasive tests, including the clinical indications, mechanism

2016 Abdominal radiology (New York)

57. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134,000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49,000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 68 years.To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF (...) ) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer.The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics

2016 JAMA

58. Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2008 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations.To inform the USPSTF by modeling the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies; estimating the optimal ages to begin and end screening; and identifying a set of model-recommendable strategies that provide similar life-years (...) gained (LYG) and a comparable balance between LYG and screening burden.Comparative modeling with 3 microsimulation models of a hypothetical cohort of previously unscreened US 40-year-olds with no prior CRC diagnosis.Screening with sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without stool testing, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and ending

2016 JAMA

59. Colonoscopy versus Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Colonoscopy versus Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening. 27168447 2016 05 16 2016 05 12 1533-4406 374 19 2016 May 12 The New England journal of medicine N. Engl. J. Med. Colonoscopy versus Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening. 1898 10.1056/NEJMx150040 eng Published Erratum United States N Engl J Med 0255562 0028-4793 N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 23;366(8):697-706 22356323 2016 5 12 6 0 2016 5 12 6 0 2016 5 12 6 1 ppublish 27168447 10.1056/NEJMx150040

2016 NEJM

60. Colorectal Cancer on the Decline - Why Screening Can't Explain It All. (Abstract)

Colorectal Cancer on the Decline - Why Screening Can't Explain It All. 27119236 2016 05 05 2016 08 25 1533-4406 374 17 2016 Apr 28 The New England journal of medicine N. Engl. J. Med. Colorectal Cancer on the Decline--Why Screening Can't Explain It All. 1605-7 10.1056/NEJMp1600448 Welch H Gilbert HG From the VA Outcomes Group, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, VT; and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine (...) , Lebanon, NH. Robertson Douglas J DJ From the VA Outcomes Group, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, VT; and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH. eng Journal Article United States N Engl J Med 0255562 0028-4793 AIM IM N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 25;375(8):804 27557317 N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 25;375(8):804 27557319 N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 25;375(8):803 27557318 Aged Colorectal Neoplasms diagnosis epidemiology

2016 NEJM