Screening for colorectal cancer and evolving issues for physicians and patients: A review

David Lieberman, Uri Ladabaum, Marcia Cruz-Correa, Carla Ginsburg, John M. Inadomi, Lawrence S. Kim, Francis M. Giardiello, Richard C. Wender

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

IMPORTANCE 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. OBSERVATIONS Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2methods 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 in reducing CRC mortality as determined by decision models. With the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have multiple steps. Adherence to each phase of a multistep program is critical to achieving maximal effectiveness of the screening program. It is likely that each of the recommended programs can reduce CRC mortality, but other key outcomesmay differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost. Decisions about the timing of screening cessation should be individualized. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE CRC screening is effective if patients adhere to the steps in each screening program. There is no evidence that one program is superior to another. Informed decision-making tools are provided to assist patients and clinicians with the goal of improving adherence to effective screening.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2135-2145
Number of pages11
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume316
Issue number20
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 22 2016

Fingerprint

Colorectal Neoplasms
Physicians
Colonoscopy
Early Detection of Cancer
Decision Making
Mortality
Sigmoidoscopy
Occult Blood
Program Evaluation
Primary Care Physicians
Advisory Committees
Cause of Death
Randomized Controlled Trials
Costs and Cost Analysis
Incidence
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Screening for colorectal cancer and evolving issues for physicians and patients : A review. / Lieberman, David; Ladabaum, Uri; Cruz-Correa, Marcia; Ginsburg, Carla; Inadomi, John M.; Kim, Lawrence S.; Giardiello, Francis M.; Wender, Richard C.

In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 316, No. 20, 22.11.2016, p. 2135-2145.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Lieberman, D, Ladabaum, U, Cruz-Correa, M, Ginsburg, C, Inadomi, JM, Kim, LS, Giardiello, FM & Wender, RC 2016, 'Screening for colorectal cancer and evolving issues for physicians and patients: A review', JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 316, no. 20, pp. 2135-2145. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.17418
Lieberman, David ; Ladabaum, Uri ; Cruz-Correa, Marcia ; Ginsburg, Carla ; Inadomi, John M. ; Kim, Lawrence S. ; Giardiello, Francis M. ; Wender, Richard C. / Screening for colorectal cancer and evolving issues for physicians and patients : A review. In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016 ; Vol. 316, No. 20. pp. 2135-2145.
@article{ef12f011373b48289847df78626223b8,
title = "Screening for colorectal cancer and evolving issues for physicians and patients: A review",
abstract = "IMPORTANCE 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. OBSERVATIONS Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2methods 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 in reducing CRC mortality as determined by decision models. With the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have multiple steps. Adherence to each phase of a multistep program is critical to achieving maximal effectiveness of the screening program. It is likely that each of the recommended programs can reduce CRC mortality, but other key outcomesmay differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost. Decisions about the timing of screening cessation should be individualized. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE CRC screening is effective if patients adhere to the steps in each screening program. There is no evidence that one program is superior to another. Informed decision-making tools are provided to assist patients and clinicians with the goal of improving adherence to effective screening.",
author = "David Lieberman and Uri Ladabaum and Marcia Cruz-Correa and Carla Ginsburg and Inadomi, {John M.} and Kim, {Lawrence S.} and Giardiello, {Francis M.} and Wender, {Richard C.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1001/jama.2016.17418",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "316",
pages = "2135--2145",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "20",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening for colorectal cancer and evolving issues for physicians and patients

T2 - A review

AU - Lieberman, David

AU - Ladabaum, Uri

AU - Cruz-Correa, Marcia

AU - Ginsburg, Carla

AU - Inadomi, John M.

AU - Kim, Lawrence S.

AU - Giardiello, Francis M.

AU - Wender, Richard C.

PY - 2016/11/22

Y1 - 2016/11/22

N2 - IMPORTANCE 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. OBSERVATIONS Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2methods 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 in reducing CRC mortality as determined by decision models. With the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have multiple steps. Adherence to each phase of a multistep program is critical to achieving maximal effectiveness of the screening program. It is likely that each of the recommended programs can reduce CRC mortality, but other key outcomesmay differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost. Decisions about the timing of screening cessation should be individualized. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE CRC screening is effective if patients adhere to the steps in each screening program. There is no evidence that one program is superior to another. Informed decision-making tools are provided to assist patients and clinicians with the goal of improving adherence to effective screening.

AB - IMPORTANCE 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. OBSERVATIONS Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2methods 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 in reducing CRC mortality as determined by decision models. With the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have multiple steps. Adherence to each phase of a multistep program is critical to achieving maximal effectiveness of the screening program. It is likely that each of the recommended programs can reduce CRC mortality, but other key outcomesmay differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost. Decisions about the timing of screening cessation should be individualized. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE CRC screening is effective if patients adhere to the steps in each screening program. There is no evidence that one program is superior to another. Informed decision-making tools are provided to assist patients and clinicians with the goal of improving adherence to effective screening.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006118739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006118739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2016.17418

DO - 10.1001/jama.2016.17418

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27893135

AN - SCOPUS:85006118739

VL - 316

SP - 2135

EP - 2145

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 20

ER -