Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening may reduce the disease incidence and mortality. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of the existing evidence on different screening modalities. We aimed to systematically summarize the diagnostic accuracy and long-term effectiveness of CRC screening. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to December 31, 2023. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, plasma Septin9 methylation (mSEPT9), computed tomography colonography (CTC) using colonoscopy as the reference standard, or evaluating the long-term effectiveness of incidence and mortality of CRC screening strategies were eligible. Combined accuracy and long-term effectiveness were extracted. The level of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Using colonoscopy as the reference standard, CTC had the highest sensitivity for detecting CRC and precursors, followed by mt-sDNA, FIT, mSEPT9, and gFOBT, all of which had satisfying specificities (>85%). Convincing evidence showed FS screening reduced CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality, and gFOBT screening reduced CRC mortality but not incidence. Moderate evidence suggested colonoscopy and FIT screening were associated with reduced CRC incidence and mortality. CRC screening was not associated with the reduction of all-cause mortality and non-CRC mortality. Strong variations of diagnostic accuracy existed for the established non-invasive CRC screening methods. Consistent evidence demonstrated the effectiveness of screening in preventing CRC-related death, but convincing evidence was restricted to FS and gFOBT.

In 2021, a nation-wide screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) was step-wise implemented in Region Örebro County (RÖC) for patients aged 60 to 74 years, utilizing the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to refer patients for colonoscopy. Concurrently, the standardized care course for colorectal cancer (SCC-CRC), initiated in 2016, employs a fast-track pathway for patients with alarm symptoms to undergo colonoscopy. This study compares CRC screening colonoscopies with SCC-CRC colonoscopies in RÖC among patients aged 60 to 67 years.

An initial analysis of the Swedish colorectal screening cohort was combined with a retrospective cohort study, analyzing data from 307 CRC screening patients and 441 age-matched SCC-CRC patients in RÖC. Data included demographics, colonoscopy participation rates, and pathology findings. Statistical analyses compared outcomes between the 2 groups.

Among the screening group, 2% tested positive for FIT, with an 86% colonoscopy participation rate (N=9296). In RÖC, 266 screening patients underwent colonoscopy, with 10% diagnosed with CRC, compared with 20% in the SCC-CRC group. In addition, 39% of the screening group in RÖC were diagnosed with advanced adenomas, versus 15% in the SCC-CRC group.

Screening participation was high, with effectiveness aligning with international counterparts. The SCC-CRC pathway excels in diagnosing CRC among symptomatic patients, while the nationwide screening program is effective in early detection of CRC and advanced adenomas. underscoring the importance of integrating and optimizing both approaches within the Swedish health care system to optimize CRC prevention and management.

There has been a well-documented increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients under 50 years of age. Additionally, these patients present with later-stage cancer at diagnosis compared to their over-50 counterparts. However, there is limited consensus on how the impact of this evolving epidemiology should impact existing prevention and screening tools. Recently proposed strategies include increased genetic testing, improved young patient awareness through targeted media campaigns, and initiatives to increase clinical suspicion in primary care providers. Prevention is further complicated by nuances of treating colorectal cancer in the younger population, with underexplored concerns regarding fertility, sexual health, financial impact, and extended post-treatment surveillance. This review aims to summarize the changing epidemiology of colorectal cancer in young patients, overview existing screening guidelines, and discuss challenges and opportunities surrounding prevention of early-onset colon cancer.

We aim to evaluate the effect of aspirin on fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performance for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) including advanced adenoma (AA) and colorectal cancer (CRC).

A multicenter study involved 4887 individuals who were asked to complete a quantitative FIT and subsequent colonoscopy. Aspirin users and nonusers were matched for age and sex. The primary outcome was the positive predictive value (PPV) of FIT compared between users and matched nonusers. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were also conducted in the entire cohort and expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

For AA, the PPV of FIT was 25.30% in users vs. 14.71% in nonusers (p = 0.005), and the detection rate was 8.28% in users vs. 4.44% in nonusers (p = 0.003). The multivariable OR after adjusting age and sex was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.02-2.22, p = 0.036) for PPV and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.99-1.99, p = 0.052) for the detection rate compared between users and nonusers. Aspirin did not affect the sensitivity and specificity of FIT for AA. Additionally, no significant difference in FIT performance for ACRN and CRC was observed.

The use of aspirin increased detection rate and PPV of FIT for AA, without impact on FIT performance for ACRN and CRC. Given the risk of cardiovascular events and influence on participation rate of FIT screening, aspirin withdrawal before FIT is unnecessary.

To assess the safety and quality of baseline screening colonoscopy in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

A population-based RCT with an explanatory design is ongoing to evaluate the efficacy of colonoscopy screening in 9751 men and women aged 40-74 years at average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Japan. Screening colonoscopies for the intervention group were performed from June 2009 to June 2017.

Of the 4861 participants in the intervention group, 4495 (92.5%) underwent screening colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation was excellent (34.8%) or good (45.6%) in 80.4% of cases. The caecal intubation rate was 99.7% (4483/4495), and the mean (±SD) withdrawal time was 9.7 (±5.3) min. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 39.4% (1770/4495). A total of 27 participants (0.6%) were diagnosed with CRC, and 266 (5.9%) were diagnosed with advanced neoplasia (AN). In women, adenomas were more frequently detected in the proximal colon than in the distal colon (proximal: 18.9% vs distal: 16.4%, p=0.024), and a similar trend was observed for AN (proximal: 2.4% vs distal: 1.5%, p=0.045). No serious adverse events related to screening colonoscopy were reported, and minor adverse events were observed in two participants (0.04%).

Adequate performance in compliance, ADR, and safety was confirmed in the intervention arm of the RCT evaluating the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. The high quality of screening colonoscopy observed in the trial suggests its feasibility as a population-based screening approach.

UMIN000001980.

Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, and early detection is essential for improving outcomes. CT colonography (CTC) has emerged as a promising alternative to optical colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. This article explores the potential of CTC in Japan, focusing on quality control, patient acceptability, complications, and its role in screening programs. CTC has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for detecting colorectal polyps, with its diagnostic performance comparable to colonoscopy for lesions ≥ 10 mm. Techniques such as fecal tagging and dual-position imaging significantly enhance diagnostic accuracy. However, the variability in diagnostic outcomes underscores the need for rigorous interpretation training and quality control. The American College of Radiology recommends training with at least 50 cases verified by colonoscopy. Despite its advantages, the adoption of CTC in Japan remains limited due to low awareness among medical professionals, a shortage of trained radiologists, and the absence of specific guidelines endorsing its use. Patient acceptability for CTC is high due to its non-invasive nature, shorter examination time, and reduced bowel preparation requirements compared to colonoscopy. Nonetheless, complications such as bowel perforation, albeit rare, necessitate careful risk assessment. While CTC has been recognized in the U.S. and Europe for screening and diagnostic follow-up, its integration into Japan's colorectal cancer screening guidelines is crucial to expand its utilization. To maximize the benefits of CTC, efforts must focus on standardizing methodologies, establishing quality indicators, and generating robust evidence on mortality reduction and cost-effectiveness.

The primary aim of this study was to optimise colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies and target populations in resource-limited areas through cost-effectiveness analysis, evaluating the best screening methods and appropriate screening ages.

A prospective microsimulation model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis, calibrated with real-world data.

The study was conducted in Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China, focusing on primary and secondary healthcare levels. Data were obtained from the Huzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study included 418 805 local residents who participated in the Huzhou screening programme between 2020 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were individuals aged 45-100 years and residing in the local area.

Four initial screening methods were evaluated: single-sample immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double-sample iFOBT, single-sample iFOBT combined with a risk assessment questionnaire and double-sample iFOBT combined with a risk assessment questionnaire. Screening frequencies included annual and biennial intervals.

The primary outcome measure was the cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for different screening strategies. Also, the impact on CRC incidence, related deaths, life years saved (LYS) and QALYs was considered.

The primary data were sourced from the Huzhou screening programme, which included 418 805 individuals from 2020 to 2022. All screening strategies were found to be effective, with the cost per incremental QALY being less than $1036, which is below the minimum standard for middle-income countries. The most effective screening strategy was the annual combined two-sample iFOBT and risk evaluation questionnaires. This approach led to a reduction in CRC incidence and related deaths by 2435 and 1174 cases per 100 000 individuals, respectively, and an increase in LYS by 13 903 years and QALYs by 35 564 years. The recommended ages to begin and end screening were 48 and 72 years, respectively.

All CRC screening strategies demonstrated effectiveness compared with non-screening, with the annual combined two-sample iFOBT and risk evaluation questionnaires emerging as the optimal approach. For additional regions, the best screening strategy can be selected based on the health outcomes and costs we have provided.

Guidelines recommend individualized decision making for screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients after the age of 75 years due to low additional benefits. That should be taken with a grain of salt, as these recommendations are based on expert opinion and simulation models which do not consider (1) the differences in pathogenesis and cancer biology of CRC in elderly; (2) the risks of colonoscopy in this patient population; (3) and the impact of new surgical and nonsurgical therapies for CRC. In this review, our goal is to bring a surgeon's perspective to understand the role of screening colonoscopy in patients older than 75 years.

Colonoscopy remains the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. A substantial portion of the screening population value the high sensitivity of colonoscopy for precancerous colorectal lesions of all sizes, which allows it to be performed at 10 year intervals in average-risk persons with negative examinations. Emerging evidence supports the eventual endorsement of 15 year intervals for patients with normal examinations. Considerable evidence supports an impact of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, including a randomized controlled trial of colonoscopy vs. no screening, numerous case-control and cohort studies, an impact of fecal blood testing on cancer incidence, and the impact of one randomized controlled trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy on proximal colon cancer incidence. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of colorectal precancerous lesions, and continues to evolve with regard to sensitivity for precancerous lesions and the effectiveness and safety of precancerous lesion resection. Gains in detection of precancerous lesions have followed from a robust movement to improve colonoscopy quality, and development of non-device techniques such as patient rotation during withdrawal, water exchange colonoscopy, and double examination of one or more colonic segments. Further, development of devices to improve mucosal exposure during withdrawal (e.g. Endocuff Vision, distal cap attachment, and Computer-Aided Quality), and devices that highlight flat lesions (e.g. chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy, and Computer-Aided Detection) have created opportunities to achieve very high levels of detection and thereby increase the protective benefits of colonoscopy. Further, colonoscopy resection safety has improved via the widespread use of cold resection for lesions < 10 mm in size, as well as sessile serrated lesions of all sizes. Colonoscopy can be offered to patients as one of multiple options for screening, or as the test of choice for patients with the highest pre-screening probability of cancer and precancerous lesions, or as the first test offered followed by offers of other screening tests if colonoscopy is declined (sequential offers of screening). Sequential offers of screening result in overall adherence to screening similar to offering multiple options, but with a higher fraction of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Given the long-lasting protective effects of colonoscopy and its improving effectiveness and safety, colonoscopy remains a useful option for primary average-risk colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer remains a major cause of cancer mortality, with limited sensitivity in current diagnostics. Aberrant DNA methylation in expression-regulating sites shows biomarker potential, though few studies explore such methylation-based diagnostic tools for colorectal cancer. We conducted genome-wide DNA methylation and RNA sequencing on matched colorectal cancer and normal tissues to identify expression-related differentially methylated CpG sites (DMCs). Diagnostic models were constructed with training and validation sets of 689 samples. Machine learning techniques (random forest, elastic net, support vector machine) were employed to identify optimal diagnostic markers. Methylation-specific PCR confirmed marker-host gene regulatory relationships, and targeted bisulfite sequencing validated these markers in an independent cohort of 200 samples. Host genes roles in colorectal cancer pathogenesis were further investigated through in vivo and in vitro assays and tissue microarray analysis. We identified 64,824 DMCs in colorectal cancer, with 442 associated with gene expression. These sites impact transcription factor binding, and their host genes are linked to chemotherapy resistance. Diagnostic panels showed high efficacy, with methylation changes significantly impacting RNA and protein expression of host genes. Markers cg16851417, cg19498960, and cg16302790 were validated in blood for noninvasive screening. Clustering expression-related DMCs with similar methylation patterns may facilitate diagnostic tools development. Host genes SIM2, PDX1, and TNS4 influence colorectal cancer progression and may impact therapy response. Expression-related DMCs hold strong potential as colorectal cancer biomarkers, with implications for prognosis and therapy. The specific expression patterns of these DMCs in host genes support development of non-invasive blood-based diagnostic tools.

Colonoscopy has been widely regarded as the gold standard for its high diagnostic accuracy and preventive potential. However, its invasive nature, high cost, and suboptimal participation rates limit its utility at the population level. Non-invasive screening tests, notably the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multitarget stool DNA tests, present promising alternatives that may improve screening participation and reduce barriers to participation. Among these, FIT has demonstrated a consistent advantage in enhancing participation, which subsequently contributes to better long-term outcomes in CRC prevention. FIT-based two-step screening offers several practical advantages, including cost-effectiveness, non-invasiveness, and greater flexibility. Moreover, the quantitative nature of FIT allows for adjustable sensitivity thresholds and the ability of risk stratification, making it adaptable across diverse populations and scenarios. Through serial testing, FIT can increase cumulative detection rates over time. This approach facilitates the identification of high-risk individuals, allowing for more judicious use of colonoscopy resources and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures, especially among low-risk populations. Notably, evidence indicates that participation to FIT-based screening is consistently higher than to colonoscopy, which enhances the detection of early-stage cancers and advanced adenomas in the long run. Given the constraints of limited endoscopic capacity, the aging population, and the recent lowering of the recommended screening age due to the rising incidence of early-onset CRC, FIT emerges as a practical, flexible solution. The role of two-step FIT screening in improving participation and enabling risk-stratified, personalized approaches to CRC prevention is pivotal, advocating for its expanded integration into future screening paradigms.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third-most-common malignancy and the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide and current screening methods such as guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy have their own pros and cons. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a fecal DNA methylation test by using methylated SDC2 (mSDC2) as the epigenetic biomarker for detecting CRC in a screening-naïve population.

Fecal mSDC2 test and FIT were simultaneously performed on eligible 40- to 74-year-old adults of a regional township in China. Subjects with positive results were recommended for colonoscopy. Data of positivity rates, positive predicted values (PPVs), and detection rates associated with clinical characteristics were analysed.

The positivity rate of mSDC2 was 7.6% for 10,578 participants with valid results from both fecal mSDC2 test and FIT. With an adherence rate of 63.8% to colonoscopy referral, 25 CRCs, 189 advanced adenomas (AAs), and 165 non-advanced adenomas (NAAs) and polyps were detected. The PPVs of mSDC2 were 4.93%, 37.28%, and 32.54% for CRC, AA, and non-advanced lesions, respectively. When the CRCs and AAs were counted as positive findings, the fecal mSDC2 test showed a higher detective rate than FIT (relative risk [RR], 1.313 [1.129-1.528], P < 0.001). When NAAs and polyps were also specified as treatable lesions, the mSDC2 test was more effective in detecting these benign growths (RR, 1.872 [1.419-2.410]; P < 0.001). A combination of mSDC2 and FIT detected 29 CRCs, 298 AAs, and 234 NAAs and polyps. Overall, the fecal mSDC2 test had a higher detection rate for both advanced and non-advanced colonic lesions. The false-positive rate of the fecal mSDC2 test was comparable to that of FIT (RR, 1.169 [0.974-1.403]; P = 0.113).

The single-target stool-based mSDC2 test can effectively and accurately detect CRC and precancerous lesions in a large-scale CRC-screening program.

NCT05374369.

Colonoscopy and the faecal immunochemical test are accepted strategies for colorectal cancer screening in the average-risk population (ie, people aged ≥50 years without personal or family history of colorectal cancer). In this trial, we aimed to compare whether invitation to screening with faecal immunochemical test was non-inferior to colonoscopy in a screening programme.

COLONPREV was a pragmatic, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial done at 15 tertiary hospitals across eight regions of Spain. Eligible participants were presumptively healthy and aged between 50 years and 69 years without a personal history of colorectal cancer, adenoma or inflammatory bowel disease, family history of hereditary or familial colorectal cancer (ie, two or more first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or one diagnosed before age 60 years), severe comorbidities, or previous colectomy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy or biennial faecal immunochemical test before invitation to screening. The primary endpoint was colorectal cancer mortality at 10 years, assessed in the intention-to-screen population. An absolute difference of less than 0·16 percentage points was required to show non-inferiority. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00906997.

Between June 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2021, 57 404 individuals were randomly assigned to receive an invitation for colonoscopy (n=28 708) or the faecal immunochemical test (n=28 696). The intention-to-screen population consisted of 26 332 individuals in the colonoscopy group and 26 719 in the faecal immunochemical test group. In the intention-to-screen population, participation in any form of screening was 31·8% in the colonoscopy group and 39·9% in the faecal immunochemical test group (risk ratio [RR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·77 to 0·82]). Faecal immunochemical testing was non-inferior to colonoscopy with regard to the risk of colorectal cancer mortality at 10 years: the risk was 0·22% (55 deaths) in the colonoscopy group and 0·24% (60 deaths) in the faecal immunochemical test group (risk difference -0·02 [95% CI -0·10 to 0·06; RR 0·92 [95% CI 0·64 to 1·32]; pnon-inferiority=0·0005).

Participation in screening was higher among individuals invited to faecal immunochemical test screening than colonoscopy screening. On the basis of participation observed in this study, a faecal immunochemical test-based programme was non-inferior to a colonoscopy-based programme for colorectal cancer-related mortality.

Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española contra el Cáncer and Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Colonoscopy is among the standard tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, uptake varies, and alternatives such as colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) are available. The uptake and detection rate of clinically significant neoplasia with CCE, compared with colonoscopy, remain unclear in this setting.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rates of advanced neoplasia between CCE and colonoscopy, using a pathway in which the study group could choose between the two procedures, while the control group was offered only colonoscopy.

A randomised, intention-to-treat trial was conducted among Danish CRC screening participants who tested positive with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT). The trial compared the detection rate of advanced neoplasia (primary outcome) and the uptake rate of both approaches between the two arms.

A total of 473 684 invitations were sent to 396 676 individuals, with 62.6% returning the test. Among them, 11 075 tests were positive (4.5%), with no significant differences between the two study groups. Among FIT-positive cases, the uptake for colonoscopy was 91.1% in the control arm and 91.7% in the study arm, where participants had a choice of methods. In the study arm, 45.8% preferred CCE, 11.4% preferred colonoscopy and 42.8% had no preference and underwent colonoscopy. Ultimately, 69.9% of patients who initially opted for CCE were later referred for colonoscopy. The rate of advanced neoplasia detection was similar between the groups: 0.67% in the study arm versus 0.64% in the control arm.

Offering CCE as an alternative to colonoscopy did not significantly alter the detection rate of advanced neoplasia, nor did it increase uptake in a screening programme with high adherence to colonoscopy following a positive FIT test. Instead, it led to a very high rate of secondary colonoscopies. Therefore, CCE cannot be recommended in this setting.

NCT04049357 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Despite significant advances in prevention and early detection, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Inadequate adherence and/or lack of knowledge of guidelines have shown to prevent adequate screening and surveillance recommendations and hinder effective screening programs.

Evaluate the implementation and real-world impact of a mobile app designed to optimize CRC screening and surveillance in accordance to recently updated guidelines.

A mobile app including ergonomic algorithms integrating all pertinent guideline information was created by a group of experts. Data were collected from Catalonia healthcare professionals using the app between February 2023 and May 2024. Users' characteristics, consultation types, and patient data were analyzed to assess app's implementation, usage patterns, and impact on CRC screening and surveillance outcomes.

A total of 12,481 consultations were recorded; 3,054 (24.4%) screening and 9,427 (75.6%) post-polypectomy surveillance consultations. The app was increasingly and repeatedly used by professionals during the study period (72% retention rate). Among screening consultations, 2,082 (68.2%) patients were classified as average risk, suggesting the use of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) instead of colonoscopy. Among surveillance consultations, the app advised deferring follow-up colonoscopies and using FOBT instead in 4,748 (50%) patients based on negative index colonoscopy or the presence of low-risk polyps. Standard surveillance with colonoscopy at 3 years was recommended for 3,224 (34.1%) patients and intensive surveillance, requiring a colonoscopy at 1 year, was indicated for 749 (7.9%) patients.

A CRC screening and surveillance mobile app showed remarkable acceptance and uptake among healthcare professionals. Proper implementation of updated guidelines aided by the use of the app could significantly reduce the number of unnecessary screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies, as well as help identifying high risk patients who require intensive surveillance.

Not applicable.

Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed endoscopic procedures and is generally considered low-risk. However, when adverse events (AEs) occur, they can present significant challenges in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to estimate the global incidence of colonoscopy-related AEs.

We searched multiple databases for population-based studies reporting the incidence of colonoscopy-related AEs up to December 22, 2024. Meta-analyses were conducted for both gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal AEs. Subgroup analyses were performed based on factors including World Health Organization region, publication year, sample size, data collection method, and study design.

Among the 30,818 records identified, 82 population-based studies from 24 countries were included, involving a total of 38.5 million colonoscopies. The estimated incidence per 10,000 colonoscopies was as follows: gastrointestinal AEs, including perforation (5.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.19-6.34, I2 = 99%), bleeding (18.39; 95% CI 13.53-24.99, I2 = 100%), and splenic injury (0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.85, I2 = 93%); nongastrointestinal AEs, including cardiovascular events (52.11; 95% CI 18.67-144.59, I2 = 100%), respiratory events (4.26; 95% CI 0.73-24.99, I2 = 100%), and deaths related to colonoscopy (0.18; 95% CI 0.10-0.34, I2 = 74%). Subgroup analyses yielded partially divergent findings. The majority of the included studies exhibited a low to moderate risk of bias.

This comprehensive meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the global incidence of colonoscopy-related AEs and underscores the imperative need for continuous efforts to enhance the safety of this procedure.

Background/Objective: Gastrointestinal bleeding is a major complication of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Malignancy may be detected due to gastrointestinal bleeding, necessitating critical decisions regarding treatment selection and influencing patient prognosis. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, observational study included 501 Japanese patients who underwent initial PCI between January 2019 and January 2023. Of these patients, 393 who underwent perioperative upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy were evaluated for the presence of gastrointestinal malignancy. Results: Of the total patients, 36% presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Gastrointestinal malignancies were identified in 30 patients (8%), including 18 cases of colorectal cancer and eight cases of gastric cancer. No difference in the frequency of malignancies was observed between patients with ACS and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) (p = 0.7398). Malignancies were significantly more common in patients with positive fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (p < 0.0001); however, FIT did not detect all malignancies. The 1500-day survival rate for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies was 64%, with no difference in overall survival between treatment modalities. Conclusions: A considerable proportion of Japanese patients undergoing PCI had gastrointestinal malignancies, regardless of whether they had ACS or CCS, and their prognosis was poor. Gastrointestinal endoscopic evaluation in the perioperative period of PCI could detect malignancy without complications and might lead to appropriate cancer treatment.

Programs to improve health care for adults with criminal legal involvement, including those who have been released from incarceration in jails or prisons or who are under court or community supervison, understandably focus on treatment for mental illness, drug overdose, and suicide. However, criminal legal-involved adults also have higher risk of developing and dying from medical conditions, such as cancer, relative to the general population. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among legal-involved adults, particularly those who have been incarcerated, might be delayed or missed.

We conducted an observational study of national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic health record data to compare the CRC screening rate between legal-involved Veterans, identified through their contact with the Veterans Justice Programs, and non-legal-involved Veterans. We included patients ages 46 to 75 eligible for average-risk screening in fiscal year 2022. Our main outcome of guideline-concordant CRC screening included stool-based testing, CT colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Comparisons were estimated using an unadjusted multilevel logistic regression model with a random intercept for facility. Secondary analyses included examining associations between patient-level factors and screening receipt using adjusted models as well as assessing the variation in screening rates across 129 VHA facilities.

There were 27,597 legal-involved and 3,467,396 non-legal-involved patients who met screening eligibility. Only 47% of legal-involved patients were up to date with screening, compared to 54% of non-legal-involved patients (OR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.75 to 0.79]; risk difference = -6.5% [95% CI: -7.1% to -5.9%]). Adjusted odds of screening were higher for patients with an assigned primary care provider (OR = 2.49 [95% CI: 2.48 to 2.51]). Screening rates varied widely across facilities, ranging from 24 to 75% for legal-involved patients and from 30 to 68% for non-legal-involved patients. Legal-involved patients had significantly lower screening rates at 49 facilities and a higher rate at two facilities, compared to non-legal-involved patients.

Nearly half of VHA patients were behind on recommended CRC screening, and legal-involved VHA patients had even lower rates. Current VHA efforts to improve legal-involved patients' connection to primary care providers may result in improved screening rates.

Noninvasive stool DNA-based methylation testing has emerged as an effective strategy for the early colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Syndecan-2 ( SDC2 ) methylation frequently occurs in all stages of CRC; therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a stool DNA-based SDC2 methylation test for detecting CRC in asymptomatic or high-risk CRC populations.

This multicenter prospective study was conducted to determine the clinical performance of the SDC2 methylation test on stool DNA using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Stool samples were collected from asymptomatic individuals before colonoscopy, and the test results were independently analyzed through comparison with colonoscopic findings and pathological outcomes as reference standards.

Of the 1,124 evaluable participants, 20 had CRC, 73 had advanced adenomatous polyps (≥1.0 cm), 469 had nonadvanced adenomatous polyps (<1.0 cm), 178 had non-neoplastic polyps, and 384 had negative colonoscopy results. The stool SDC2 methylation test had a sensitivity and specificity of 95.0% and 81.5%, respectively, for detecting CRC, while the sensitivity for detecting advanced adenomatous polyps and CRC was 58.1%. The rate of adenoma detection increased with polyp size ( P < 0.01), and sensitivity was not associated with CRC stage ( P = 0.864).

The stool DNA-based SDC2 methylation test attained a high sensitivity for CRC detection in an asymptomatic high-risk population. Further large-scale clinical studies are required to validate the clinical utility of this test as a population-based CRC screening tool.

Demonstrating mortality reduction in new colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs through randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging. We systematically reviewed single-round program performance outcomes using a stepwise approach proposed by the World Endoscopy Organization CRC Screening Committee framework.

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and Ichushi Web databases were searched until October 28, 2024, to find RCTs comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT and FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and total colonoscopy (TCS). Paired reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias risk. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was advanced neoplasia (AN) detection, and the secondary outcomes were participation and colorectal cancer (CRC) detection, all during the first screening round.

Eighteen RCTs (437,072 invitees) were included. The risk of bias was low or raised some concerns for screening participation, but it was high for detection outcomes. In the network meta-analysis of 15 RCTs not allowing crossover, the FIT-based program had a higher AN detection rate than the gFOBT-based program (relative risk [RR] 2.48; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.52-4.21; moderate certainty). AN detection rates were not different in the CTC- (RR 1.01; CrI 0.43-2.23; very low certainty) and TCS-based (RR 1.03; CrI 0.54-1.78; low certainty) programs compared with the FS-based program. All the visualization modality programs had higher AN detection rates than the FIT-based program (FS: RR 2.13 [CrI 1.38-3.77]; CTC 2.16 [1.11-4.51]; and TCS 2.19 [1.43-3.48]; all with low certainty). Low event rates precluded definitive conclusions regarding CRC detection (very low to low certainty). The TCS-based program had the worst participation rate (very low to low certainty). Comparative data allowing crossover were limited.

This is the first network meta-analysis that evaluates program-level initial performance indicators. FIT-based programs likely detect more AN cases than gFOBT-based programs, while FS-, CTC-, and TCS-based programs may outperform FIT. Due to limitations in first-round results, long-term outcomes should be assessed after 10-15 years.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among U.S. Hispanics, with screening proven to decrease both incidence and mortality. Despite rising CRC screening rates in the U.S., Hispanic participation remains disproportionately low. Stool-based tests, particularly popular for reaching underserved populations, may enhance screening adherence. This study evaluates the performance of a 1-day versus a 3-day stool-based testing kit in improving screening completion rates and reducing the need for reminder calls in a Hispanic community along the U.S.-Mexico border. In our quasi-experimental observational study, participants aged 45-75 years who were uninsured or underinsured and overdue for CRC screening were recruited. They received colorectal cancer education and no-cost stool-based screening facilitated by promotoras. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a 1-day or 3-day Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit. The promotoras swapped FIT kit distribution roles midway through the study period to mitigate performance bias. Our analysis covered 6,660 FITs-3,067 using the 3-day kit and 3,593 with the 1-day kit. Results indicated a higher return rate for the 1-day FIT kit (61.3% vs. 58.7%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.22, p < 0.001), fewer reminders needed (69.7% vs. 78.1%, aOR = 0.65, p < 0.001), and lower abnormal FIT results (5.3% vs. 8.1%, aOR = 0.61, p < 0.001). Conclusively, the 1-day FIT kit required fewer reminders and significantly improved return rates, suggesting it may be a more effective option for increasing CRC screening completion among hard-to-reach Hispanic populations.

To estimate the benefits, burden, and harms of implementing computer aided detection (CADe) of polyps in colonoscopy of population based screening programmes for colorectal cancer.

Microsimulation modelling study.

Cost effectiveness working package in the OperA (optimising colorectal cancer prevention through personalised treatment with artificial intelligence) project. A parallel guideline committee panel (BMJ Rapid recommendation) was consulted in defining the screening interventions and selection of outcome measures.

Four cohorts of 100 000 European individuals aged 60-69 years.

The intervention was one screening of colonoscopy and a screening of colonoscopy after faecal immunochemical test every other year with CADe. The comparison group had the same screening every other year without CADe.

Benefits (colorectal cancer incidence and death), burden (surveillance colonoscopies), and harms (colonoscopy related adverse events) over 10 years were measured. The certainty in each outcome was assessed by use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

For 100 000 individuals participating in colonoscopy screening, 824 (0.82%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 10 years without CADe versus 713 (0.71%) with CADe (risk difference -0.11% (95% CI -0.43% to 0.21%)). For faecal immunochemical test screening colonoscopy, the risk was 5.82% (n=5820) without CADe versus 5.77% (n=5770) with CADe (difference -0.05% (-0.33% to 0.15%)). The risk of surveillance colonoscopy increased from 26.45% (n=26 453) to 32.82% (n=32 819) (difference 6.37% (5.8% to 6.9%)) for colonoscopy screening and from 52.26% (n=52 263) to 53.08% (n=53 082) (difference 0.82% (0.38% to 1.26%)) for faecal immunochemical test screening colonoscopy. No significant differences were noted in adverse events related to the colonoscopy between CADe and no CADe. The model estimates were sensitive to the assumed effects of screening on colorectal cancer risk and of CADe on adenoma detection rates. All outcomes were graded as low certainty.

With low certainty of evidence, adoption of CADe in population based screening provides small and uncertain clinical meaningful benefit, no incremental harms, and increased surveillance burden after screening.

Family physician (FP)-performed screening colonoscopies can serve as 1 strategy in the multifaceted strategy necessary to improve national colorectal cancer screening rates, particularly in rural areas where specialist models can fail. However, little research exists on the performance of this strategy in the real world. In this study, we evaluated trends in and factors associated with FP-performed screening colonoscopies in the United States between 2016 and 2021.

Using national data from Merative's Marketscan insurance claims database, we estimate the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by FPs. We use logistic regression models to evaluate factors independently associated with FP-performed colonoscopies.

The percentage of screening colonoscopies performed by FPs exhibited a downward trend from 11.32% in 2016 to 6.73% in 2021, with the largest decrease occurring among patients from the most rural areas. FPs were more likely to perform colonoscopies on slightly older patients, male patients, and rural patients. Patients were less likely to receive FP-performed colonoscopies in large metropolitan areas compared to lesser populated areas. Patients were more likely to receive FP-performed colonoscopies in the Midwest, South, and West, even after accounting for urban-rural classification.

Despite a downward trajectory, FPs perform a substantial proportion of screening colonoscopies in the United States. Changes to the business side of health care delivery may be contributing to the observed decreasing rate. Whether through spatial or relational proximity, FPs may be better positioned to provide colonoscopy to some rural, male, and older patients who otherwise may not have been screened. Policy changes to expand the FP workforce, particularly in rural areas, are likely necessary to slow or reverse the downward trend of FP-performed screening colonoscopies.

To identify possible predictors of older adults' preferences for stopping or continuing colorectal cancer (CRC) testing and satisfaction with medical visits.

Cross-sectional, secondary analysis of patient data. The parent study was a two-arm, multi-site clustered randomized trial, assigning primary care physicians to receive shared decision making training plus a reminder, or reminders alone for patients who were due for CRC testing. For the current analysis, patient data were pooled and analyzed without regard to study arm. Patients were aged 76-85 years.

In total, 375 patients reported their preference: 74 % preferred continued testing while 26 % preferred no further testing. In multivariable models, patients were more likely to prefer CRC testing if they had more maximizing preferences for health care, higher anticipated regret at missing a diagnosis, and lower anticipated regret about colonoscopy complications. Patients were more likely to report being extremely satisfied with the visit with longer duration spent discussing testing options.

Anticipated decision regret and medical maximizing were associated with preferences for CRC testing. Time spent discussing CRC testing was associated with visit satisfaction.

To support informed decision making, older adults should be given thorough information about CRC testing, treatments, and post-treatment follow up.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks second globally in cancer-related deaths and there is ongoing debate on the best populational screening strategy. This study aimed to evaluate individuals' intention to adhere to CRC screening, screening method preference, and barriers to screening.

Cross-sectional study conducted in northern Portugal, where a populational fecal occult blood test (FOBT) program is implemented. The validated PERCEPT-PREVENT tool was administered across 3 groups: a) not yet invited to screening b) accepted FOBT screening, and c) primary colonoscopy screening.

A total of 397 participants completed the PERCEPT-PREVENT questionnaire and were compared by screening status. Intention to adhere was reported at a high rate (95 %;n = 354) and was positively influenced by knowledge of the screening rationale (OR8.96, 95 %CI 3.61-22.25). Most were unaware of symptoms (64 %;n = 253), risk factors (68 %;n = 271), and associated screening procedure risks (58 %;n = 230). Lower barrier scores for FOBT (7 ± 3) compared to colonoscopy (10 ± 3) were observed for screening naïve respondents (p < 0.001). Previous FOBT screening led to a lower preference for colonoscopy (previous FOBT screening 56 % vs not yet invited to screening 75 % vs previous primary colonoscopy 90 %; p < 0.001).

A greater understanding of the screening rationale enhances adherence. FOBT was highly accepted among never-screened participants. Colonoscopy should be offered to FOBT decliners, as personalized screening approaches could improve participation rates.

Colonoscopy (CS) is an important screening method for the early detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The stool state during bowel preparation (BP) should be properly evaluated to perform CS with sufficient quality. This study aimed to develop a smartphone application (app) with an artificial intelligence (AI) model for stool state evaluation during BP and to investigate whether the use of the app could maintain an adequate quality of CS.

First, stool images were collected in our hospital to develop the AI model and were categorized into grade 1 (solid or muddy stools), grade 2 (cloudy watery stools), and grade 3 (clear watery stools). The AI model for stool state evaluation (grades 1-3) was constructed and internally verified using the cross-validation method. Second, a prospective study was conducted on the quality of CS using the app in our hospital. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients who achieved Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 among those who successfully used the app.

The AI model showed mean accuracy rates of 90.2%, 65.0%, and 89.3 for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The prospective study enrolled 106 patients and revealed that 99.0% (95% confidence interval 95.3-99.9%) of patients achieved a BBPS ≥6.

The proportion of patients with BBPS ≥6 during CS using the developed app exceeded the set expected value. This app could contribute to the performance of high-quality CS in clinical practice.

The pressing need for reliable biomarkers in colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and prognosis is a major global health concern. Current diagnostic methods rely heavily on invasive procedures like colonoscopy, and existing biomarkers such as Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) exhibit limitations in accuracy and specificity.

This study aims to identify and validate novel biomarkers that can enhance the early detection and diagnostic precision of CRC while overcoming the shortcomings of conventional biomarkers.

Leveraging advancements in genomic and proteomic technologies, gene expression datasets were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We identified differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and conducted further analyses, including Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment and Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) network construction. Five promising biomarkers-INHBA, MMP7, PSAT1, SLC7A5, and TGFBI-were selected based on their robust performance in Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Serum concentrations of these biomarkers were measured in 200 CRC patients and 100 healthy controls.

The study revealed significantly elevated expression levels of the selected biomarkers in CRC tissues compared to normal tissues. Additionally, serum concentrations of INHBA, MMP7, PSAT1, SLC7A5, and TGFBI were notably higher in CRC patients than in healthy individuals, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.8361 to 0.9869 indicating high diagnostic accuracy. Optimal cutoff values for diagnosis ranged from 38.9 pg/mL to 280.7 pg/mL, yielding sensitivity and specificity values between 74.5% and 92.9%.

The findings underscore the potential of INHBA, MMP7, PSAT1, SLC7A5, and TGFBI as effective non-invasive biomarkers for CRC detection. Their elevated serum concentrations and robust discriminatory abilities highlight their promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes compared to traditional biomarkers.

The identification and validation of these novel biomarkers represent a significant advancement in CRC diagnosis and management. Further studies are required to validate their clinical applicability in larger cohorts and to elucidate their functional roles in CRC pathogenesis, ultimately enhancing diagnostic strategies and personalized treatment approaches.

The objective of this retrospective observational study was to investigate the impact of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by primary tumor location. We compared the risk of requiring treatment for advanced disease and total medical costs per patient between CRC patients who underwent FOBT within 1 year before initial treatment for CRC and those who did not, using the JMDC Claims database, large-scale health insurance claims and checkup data in Japan. Treatment for advanced disease was defined as (1) nonendoscopic therapy or (2) chemotherapy or radiotherapy, performed during the follow-up period. A total of 1194 participants with CRC (right-sided, 22.2%; left-sided, 60.4%) who initiated treatment between 2010 and 2016 and underwent health checkups within 1 year before the initial treatment were enrolled and followed up for an average of 46.1 months. A significantly lowered risk ratio (RR) of chemotherapy or radiotherapy and total medical costs were observed in FOBT group for left-sided CRC [RR = 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.97), mean and median costs = 4.1 vs. 5.6 and 2.4 vs. 2.9 million JPY; P = 0.018], while they were not observed for right-sided CRC [RR = 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.28), mean and median costs = 4.0 vs. 4.1 and 2.7 vs. 2.9 million JPY; P = 0.995]. This study demonstrated the improved outcomes by FOBT for left-sided CRC, whereas its impact was limited for right-sided CRC.

Biomarkers have revolutionized the management of colorectal cancer (CRC), facilitating early detection, prevention, personalized treatment, and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring. This review explores current CRC screening strategies and emerging biomarker applications.

We summarize the landscape of non-invasive CRC screening and MRD detection strategies, discuss the limitations of the current approaches, and highlight the promising potential of novel biomarker solutions. The fecal immunochemical test remained the cornerstone of CRC screening, but its sensitivity has been improved by assays that combined its performance with other stool analytes. However, their sensitivity for advanced adenomas and the patient compliance both remain suboptimal. Blood-based tests promise to increase compliance but require further refinement to compete with stool-based biomarker tests. The ideal scenario involves leveraging blood tests to increase screening participation, and simultaneously promote stool- and endoscopy-based screening among those who are compliant. Once solely reliant on upfront surgery followed by stage and pathology-driven adjuvant chemotherapy, the treatment of stage II and III colon cancer has undergone a revolutionary transformation with the advent of MRD testing after surgery. A decade ago, the concept of using a post-surgical test instead of stage and pathology to determine the need for adjuvant chemotherapy was disruptive. Today, a blood test may be more informative of the need for chemotherapy than the stage at diagnosis.

Biomarker research is not just improving, but bringing a transformative change to CRC clinical management. Early detection is not just getting better, but improving thanks to a multi-modality approach, and personalized treatment plans are not just becoming a reality, but a promising future with MRD testing.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the predictive ability of the TyG index for the presence of adenoma and multiple adenomas in an asymptomatic population.

A secondary analysis was conducted on a prospective cohort of asymptomatic subjects aged between 50 and 75 who underwent CRC screening. Fasting blood glucose (FBG) and lipid profiles were measured within three months prior colonoscopy. TyG index was estimated as ln [fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) × FBG (mg/dL)/2]. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the TyG index and the risk of adenoma. Its association with multiple adenomas (≥5) and the continuous number of adenomas were assessed by multinomial regression and log-normal linear regression, respectively.

A total of 1,538 subjects were recruited among which 876 subjects (57%) had at least one adenoma detected. Elevated TyG index was positively associated with the incidence of adenoma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.54). Compared with the lowest TyG index (≤ 8) group, the risk of adenoma was the highest among subjects in the highest TyG index (> 10) group (aOR: 3.36, 95% CI: 1.44-7.73). As compared to the non-adenoma group, the TyG index was also positively associated with multiple adenomas (aOR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.17-2.57), and the estimate was also the highest in the highest TyG group (aOR: 14.49, 95% CI: 3.12-67.20). As for the number of adenomas, the positive association was maintained (Estimates: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.12) while the number of adenomas increase the most in the highest TyG index group (Estimates: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.10-1.65).

Elevated TyG index is associated with an increased risk of colorectal adenoma and an increased number of adenomas for asymptomatic subjects aged ≥50.

This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03597204 and NCT04034953).

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major concern because of its increasing incidence and mortality worldwide. Therefore, effective screening strategies are necessary to reduce its incidence.

In addition to fecal immunochemical tests and computed tomography colonography, screening colonoscopy is expected to significantly contribute to the reduction of CRC. However, the timing of colonoscopy for CRC screening is not well-defined because of the lack of sufficient data. Additionally, the effectiveness of colonoscopy is affected by various factors known as quality indicators (QIs), such as the performance of the endoscopist; therefore, there are concerns regarding quality assurance. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-known QI of colonoscopy. Substantial evidence has suggested that improving the ADR could reduce the incidence and mortality of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Recent technological advancements have led to the development of image-enhanced endoscopy and the incorporation of artificial intelligence, and their ability to improve the ADR has been assessed. This review focused on screening colonoscopies and QIs and their ability to improve the ADR and incidence and mortality of CRC.

Screening colonoscopy, recommended every 10 years, reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) by early detection of prevalent but undiagnosed CRC, as well as by removal of precursor lesions. The aim of this study was to assess the relative contribution of both components to total CRC mortality reduction over time.

Using a validated multistate Markov model, we simulated hypothetical cohorts of 100,000 individuals aged 55 to 64 years with and without screening at baseline. Main outcomes included proportions of prevented CRC deaths arising from (asymptomatic) CRC already present at baseline and from newly developed CRC during 15 years of follow-up, and mortality rate ratios of screened versus nonscreened groups over time.

Early detection of prevalent cases accounted for 52%, 30%, and 18% of deaths prevented by screening colonoscopy within 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Relative reduction of mortality was estimated to be much larger for mortality from incident cancers than for mortality from cancers that were already present and detected early at screening endoscopy and for total CRC mortality (ie, 88% versus 67% and 79%, respectively, within 10 years from screening).

Reduction of CRC mortality mainly arises from early detection of prevalent cancers during the early years after screening colonoscopy, but prevention of incident cases accounts for the majority of prevented deaths in the longer run. Prevention of incident cases leads to sustained strong reduction of CRC mortality, possibly warranting an extension of screening intervals.

Despite widespread use of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, data to guide test selection are limited.

To compare the performance characteristics of 5 commonly used FITs, using colonoscopy as the reference standard.

Cross-sectional study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03264898).

Three U.S. academic medical centers and affiliated endoscopy units.

Patients aged 50 to 85 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

Participants completed 5 different FITs before their colonoscopy, including 4 qualitative tests (Hemoccult ICT, Hemosure iFOB, OC-Light S FIT, QuickVue iFOB) and 1 quantitative test (OC-Auto FIT, which was run at the manufacturer's threshold for positivity of >100 ng/mL).

The primary outcome was test performance (sensitivity and specificity) for each of the 5 FITs for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined as advanced polyps or CRC. Positivity rates, positive and negative predictive values, and rates of unevaluable tests were compared. Multivariable models were used to identify factors affecting sensitivity.

A total of 3761 participants were enrolled, with a mean age of 62.1 years (SD, 7.8); 63.2% of participants were female, 5.7% were Black, 86.4% were White, and 28.7% were Hispanic. There were 320 participants with ACN (8.5%), including 9 with CRC (0.2%). The test positivity rate varied 4-fold (3.9% to 16.4%) across FITs. Rates of unevaluable FITs ranged from 0.2% to 2.5%. The sensitivity for ACN varied from 10.1% to 36.7%, and specificity varied from 85.5% to 96.6%. Differences in sensitivity between FITs were all statistically significantly different except between Hemosure iFOB and QuickVue iFOB, and specificity differences were all statistically significantly different from one another. In addition to FIT brand, distal location of ACN was also associated with higher FIT sensitivity.

The study did not assess the programmatic sensitivity of annual FIT.

Although considered a single class, FITs have varying test performance for detecting ACN and should not be considered interchangeable.

National Institutes of Health.

Experience and satisfaction of colorectal cancer screening program participants are among the key factors that determine adherence to these programs. Understanding them is crucial to ensure future participation.

To explore and gain understanding on the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs.

A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. We conducted a literature search up to April 2023 in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis. We independently selected the studies for their inclusion, assessed their methodological quality (with CASP tool) and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. We thoroughly read the selected studies, and analyzed the data following a thematic synthesis approach. We evaluated the confidence in our findings with CERQUAL.

We included six studies: four had an appropriate quality, and two had some methodological limitations. We identified five main findings across studies: (1) Variability in the concerns about the results; (2) Challenges regarding procedure logistics; (3) Care received from the healthcare professionals; (4) Being adequately informed; (5) Expectations and experience with the program. All findings had a moderate level of confidence.

Our qualitative review provides a picture of the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. Despite some logistical and expectation management issues, the overall satisfaction with the programs is high. More research is needed on the topic, as there are still important gaps in knowledge.

The Japan Gastroenterological Association published the first version of its clinical guidelines for chronic constipation 2023. Based on the latest evidence, these guidelines describe the definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, diagnostic testing methods, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of chronic constipation. They include flowcharts for both diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation. In the treatment of chronic constipation, the first step involves differentiating between secondary forms, such as organic disease-associated constipation, systemic disease-associated constipation, and drug-induced constipation. The next step is to determine whether the chronic constipation stems from a motility disorder, a form of primary chronic constipation. For functional constipation and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, treatment should be initiated after evaluating symptoms like reduced bowel movement frequency type or defecation difficulty type. The first line of treatment includes the improvement of lifestyle habits and diet therapy. The first drugs to consider for oral treatment are osmotic laxatives. If these are ineffective, secretagogues and ileal bile acid transporter inhibitors are candidates. However, stimulant laxatives are exclusively designated for as-needed use. Probiotics, bulk-forming laxatives, prokinetics, and Kampo medicines, for which there is insufficient evidence, are considered alternative or complementary therapy. Providing the best clinical strategies for chronic constipation therapy in Japan, these clinical guidelines for chronic constipation 2023 should prove useful for its treatment worldwide. The Japan Gastroenterological Association published the first version of its clinical guidelines for chronic constipation 2023. Based on the latest evidence, these guidelines describe the definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, diagnostic testing methods, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of chronic constipation. They include flowcharts for both diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation. In the treatment of chronic constipation, the first step involves differentiating between secondary forms, such as organic disease-associated constipation, systemic disease-associated constipation, and drug-induced constipation. The next step is to determine whether the chronic constipation stems from a motility disorder, a form of primary chronic constipation. For functional constipation and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, treatment should be initiated after evaluating symptoms like reduced bowel movement frequency type or defecation difficulty type. The first line of treatment includes the improvement of lifestyle habits and diet therapy. The first drugs to consider for oral treatment are osmotic laxatives. If these are ineffective, secretagogues and ileal bile acid transporter inhibitors are candidates. However, stimulant laxatives are exclusively designated for as-needed use. Probiotics, bulk-forming laxatives, prokinetics, and Kampo medicines, for which there is insufficient evidence, are considered alternative or complementary therapy. Providing the best clinical strategies for chronic constipation therapy in Japan, these clinical guidelines for chronic constipation 2023 should prove useful for its treatment worldwide.