Modelling the impact of colorectal cancer screening strategies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

doi:10.3748/wjg.122311

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 32, Issue 43

This Article

(3)

(0)

(2)

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.

World J Gastroenterol. Nov 21, 2026; 32(43): 122311
Published online Nov 21, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.122311

Table 2 Summary of screening effectiveness based on hybrid strategies¹

Hybrid strategies	No. of studies	No. of scenarios	Screening modalities	Risk ratios of CRC incidence	Risk ratios of CRC mortality
Concurrent dual-modality screening²	8	27	FS, FIT	0.17-0.48 (100% adherence); 0.58-0.93 (realistic adherence)	0.11-0.29 (100% adherence); 0.34-0.86 (realistic adherence)
			FS, FOBT
			Colonoscopy, liquid biopsy
			FIT, mSEPT9
Age-stratified sequential screening³	8	26	FIT, colonoscopy	0.19-0.47 (100% adherence); 0.39-0.88 (realistic adherence)	0.11-0.37 (100% adherence); 0.38-0.82 (realistic adherence)
			FOBT, colonoscopy
			FS, FIT
			FS, colonoscopy
Gender-specific strategies	2	5	FIT, colonoscopy	0.36 (100% adherence); 0.50-0.85 (realistic adherence)	0.28 (100% adherence); 0.74 (realistic adherence)
Gender-specific strategies	2	5	FS, colonoscopy	0.36 (100% adherence); 0.50-0.85 (realistic adherence)	0.28 (100% adherence); 0.74 (realistic adherence)
Risk-stratified strategies	1	1	FIT, colonoscopy	0.36 (100% adherence)	NR

¹Screening scenarios varied by model, natural history assumptions, adherence, screening age, and interval for each strategy.

²Concurrent dual-modality screening refers to combining two distinct screening tests simultaneously.

³Age-stratified sequential screening refers to initiating with a primary screening method during earlier ages and transitioning to an alternative modality at older ages.

CRC: Colorectal cancer; FIT: Fecal immunochemical test; FOBT: Fecal occult blood testing; FS: Flexible sigmoidoscopy; mSEPT9: Methylated Septin 9 DNA blood test; NR: Not reported.

Full Size Table

Citation: Yan YK, Zhang YL, Lu B, He ZL, Cheng XR, Song K, Chen YQ, Han JJ, Chen HD, Dai M. Modelling the impact of colorectal cancer screening strategies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(43): 122311
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v32/i43/122311.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.122311

Yan YK, Zhang YL, Lu B, He ZL, Cheng XR, Song K, Chen YQ, Han JJ, Chen HD, Dai M. Modelling the impact of colorectal cancer screening strategies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(43): 122311 [DOI: 10.3748/wjg.122311]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.