4.6 Review

Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 124-138

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.124

Keywords

Guidelines; Systematic review; Fecal occult blood test; Fecal immunochemical test; Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer; Screening; Flexible sigmoidoscopy

Funding

  1. Fonds de recherche du Quebec-Sante (FRQS) career development award
  2. ERBE
  3. Vantage
  4. Pentax

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To summarize and compare worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in order to identify similarities and disparities. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge identifying all average-risk CRC screening guideline publications within the last ten years and/or position statements published in the last 2 years. In addition, a hand-search of the webpages of National Gastroenterology Society websites, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the BMJ Clinical Evidence website, RESULTS Fifteen guidelines were identified. Six guidelines were published in North America, four in Europe, four in Asia and one from the World Gastroenterology Organization. The majority of guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals between ages 50 and 75 using colonoscopy (every 10 years), or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS, every 5 years) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT, mainly the Fecal Immunochemical Test, annually or biennially). Disparities throughout the different guidelines are found relating to the use of colonoscopy, rank order between test, screening intervals and optimal age ranges for screening. CONCLUSION Average risk individuals between 50 and 75 years should undergo CRC screening. Recommendations for optimal surveillance intervals, preferred tests/test cascade as well as the optimal timing when to start and stop screening differ regionally and should be considered for clinical decision making. Furthermore, local resource availability and patient preferences are important to increase CRC screening uptake, as any screening is better than none.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available