Gastroenterology

Gastroenterology

Volume 134, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 1570-1595
Gastroenterology

AGA Institute
Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline From the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002Get rights and content

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed among men and women and the second leading cause of death from cancer. CRC largely can be prevented by the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps, and survival is significantly better when CRC is diagnosed while still localized. In 2006 to 2007, the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology came together to develop consensus guidelines for the detection of adenomatous polyps and CRC in asymptomatic average-risk adults. In this update of each organization's guidelines, screening tests are grouped into those that primarily detect cancer early and those that can detect cancer early and also can detect adenomatous polyps, thus providing a greater potential for prevention through polypectomy. When possible, clinicians should make patients aware of the full range of screening options, but at a minimum they should be prepared to offer patients a choice between a screening test that primarily is effective at early cancer detection and a screening test that is effective at both early cancer detection and cancer prevention through the detection and removal of polyps. It is the strong opinion of these 3 organizations that colon cancer prevention should be the primary goal of screening.

Section snippets

Guidelines Development, Methods, and Framework

The guidelines update process was divided into 2 phases. The first phase focused on the stool tests, including gFOBT, FIT, and sDNA. The second phase of the guidelines update process focused on the structural exams, including FSIG, colonoscopy, DCBE,and CTC. Deliberations about evidence and presentations from experts took place during 2 face-to-face meetings of the the collaborating organizations and invited outside experts and through periodic conference calls. The process relied on earlier

Summary of the Recommendations

In this update of guidelines for CRC screening in average-risk adults, the expert panel concluded that a screening test must be able to detect the majority of prevalent or incident cancers at the time of testing. Here we are drawing a new, important distinction between test sensitivity and program sensitivity, the former being the sensitivity achieved in a single test and the latter being the sensitivity achieved over time through serial testing in a program. While cancer screening tests are

Stool Blood Tests—gFOBT and FIT

Stool blood tests are conventionally known as fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) because they are designed to detect the presence of occult blood in stool. FOBT fall into 2 primary categories based on the detected analyte: gFOBT and FIT. Blood in the stool is a nonspecific finding but may originate from CRC or larger (>1 to 2 cm) polyps. Because small adenomatous polyps do not tend to bleed and bleeding from cancers or large polyps may be intermittent or simply not always detectable in a single

FSIG

FSIG is an endoscopic procedure that examines the lower half of the colon lumen. In addition to the standard 60-cm sigmoidoscope, the exam may be performed with a variety of endoscopic instruments, including a colonoscope, an upper endoscope, and a pediatric colonoscope. It is typically performed without sedation and with a more limited bowel preparation than standard CSPY. Since sedation is not required, it can be performed in office-based settings and by nonphysicians, including nurses or

Conclusion

There is compelling evidence to support screening average-risk individuals over age 50 years to detect and prevent CRC. Screening of average-risk individuals can reduce CRC mortality by detecting cancer at an early, curable stage and by detecting and removing clinically significant adenomas. No CRC screening test is perfect, either for cancer detection or adenoma detection. Each test has unique advantages, each has been shown to be cost-effective,205, 206, 207, 208 and each has associated

References (210)

  • K.K. Engelman et al.

    Fecal occult blood test use by Kansas medicare beneficiaries

    Prev Med

    (2001)
  • A. Schattner et al.

    Primary care physicians' awareness and implementation of screening guidelines for colorectal cancer

    Prev Med

    (2002)
  • J.B. Simon

    Occult blood screening for colorectal carcinoma: a critical review

    Gastroenterology

    (1985)
  • P. Caligiore et al.

    Peroxidase levels in food: relevance to colorectal cancer screening

    Am J Clin Nutr

    (1982)
  • P.D. Greenberg et al.

    A prospective multicenter evaluation of new fecal occult blood tests in patients undergoing colonoscopy

    Am J Gastroenterol

    (2000)
  • T. Morikawa et al.

    A comparison of the immunochemical fecal occult blood test and total colonoscopy in the asymptomatic population

    Gastroenterology

    (2005)
  • D. Whitney et al.

    Enhanced retrieval of DNA from human fecal samples results in improved performance of colorectal cancer screening test

    J Mol Diagn

    (2004)
  • D.A. Ahlquist et al.

    Colorectal cancer screening by detection of altered human DNA in stool: feasibility of a multitarget assay panel

    Gastroenterology

    (2000)
  • D. Calistri et al.

    Fecal multiple molecular tests to detect colorectal cancer in stool

    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol

    (2003)
  • K.S. Tagore et al.

    Sensitivity and specificity of a stool DNA multitarget assay panel for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia

    Clin Colorectal Cancer

    (2003)
  • S.H. Itzkowitz et al.

    Improved fecal DNA test for colorectal cancer screening

    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol

    (2007)
  • B.M. Berger et al.

    Colorectal cancer screening using stool DNA analysis in clinical practice: early clinical experience with respect to patient acceptance and colonoscopic follow-up of abnormal tests

    Clin Colorectal Cancer

    (2006)
  • N.K. Osborn et al.

    Stool screening for colorectal cancer: molecular approaches

    Gastroenterology

    (2005)
  • N. Kutzner et al.

    Noninvasive detection of colorectal tumours by the combined application of molecular diagnosis and the faecal occult blood test

    Cancer Lett

    (2005)
  • W. Atkin et al.

    Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy

    Gastroenterology

    (2004)
  • R.E. Schoen et al.

    Yield of advanced adenoma and cancer based on polyp size detected at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy

    Gastroenterology

    (2006)
  • E.J. Bini et al.

    Prospective, randomized, single-blind comparison of two preparations for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2000)
  • R. Zubarik et al.

    Procedure-related abdominal discomfort in patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy

    Am J Gastroenterol

    (2002)
  • A. Jemal et al.

    Cancer statistics, 2008

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2008)
  • L. Ries et al.

    SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2004

  • D.K. Espey et al.

    Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives

    Cancer

    (2007)
  • J.V. Selby et al.

    A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (1992)
  • J.S. Mandel et al.

    The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (2000)
  • H.I. Meissner et al.

    Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States

    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev

    (2006)
  • R.A. Smith et al.

    Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2007)
  • J.H. Bond

    Colon polyps and cancer

    Endoscopy

    (2003)
  • S.J. Winawer

    Natural history of colorectal cancer

    Am J Med

    (1999)
  • D.A. Lieberman et al.

    One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon

    N Engl J Med

    (2001)
  • D. Eddy

    ACS report on the cancer-related health checkup

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (1980)
  • B. Levin et al.

    Revision in American Cancer Society recommendations for the early detection of colorectal cancer

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (1992)
  • T. Byers et al.

    American Cancer Society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: update 1997American Cancer Society Detection and Treatment Advisory Group on Colorectal Cancer

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (1997)
  • R.A. Smith et al.

    American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancersAlso: update 2001—testing for early lung cancer detection

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2001)
  • B. Levin et al.

    Emerging technologies in screening for colorectal cancer: CT colonography, immunochemical fecal occult blood tests, and stool screening using molecular markers

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2003)
  • Guide to Clinical Preventive Services

    (1996)
  • Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale

    Ann Intern Med

    (2002)
  • S.N. Glick

    Comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema

    N Engl J Med

    (2000)
  • J.P. Heiken et al.

    Colorectal cancer screening

    American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria

    (2006)
  • S.J. Winawer et al.

    Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi- Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2006)
  • S.W. Vernon

    Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1997)
  • M. Pignone et al.

    Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force

    Ann Intern Med

    (2002)
  • Cited by (1755)

    • Characteristics of adenomatous colorectal polyps among a Saudi population

      2023, Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    ACS CRC Advisory Group Members: Bernard Levin, MD (Chair); Professor Emeritus, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Tim Byers, MD, MPH (Vice Chair); Professor, Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO; Briggs W. Andrews, Esq; Senior Vice President; and General Counsel of Carilion Health System, Roanoke, VA; Elvan Daniels, MD; Associate Director for Community-Oriented Primary Care, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Lovell Jones, PhD; Professor of Gynecologic Oncology; and Director, Center of Excellence for Research on Minority Health, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Gordon Klatt, MD; Medical Director, Cancer Programs, Mt. Rainier Surgical Association, Tacoma, WA; Theodore R. Levin, MD; Staff Physician, Gastroenterology Department, Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Medical Center, Walnut Creek, CA; Pamela McAllister, PhD; Founding Member and Research Advocate, Colorectal Cancer Coalition, Madison, WI; Beth McFarland, MD; Adjunct Professor, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St Luke's Hospital, Diagnostic Imaging Associates, Chesterfield, MO; Sigurd Normann, MD, PhD; Professor, Department of Pathology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Miquel Rodriguez-Bigas, MD; Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Alan Thorson, MD; Associate Professor of Surgery; and Program Director, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Creighton University School of Medicine; and Clinical Associate Professor of Surgery, University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, NE; Richard Wender, MD; Chair; and Alumni Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.

    ACS Staff and Consultants: Durado Brooks, MD, MPH; Director, Prostate and CRC, Cancer Control Science Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Robert A. Smith, PhD; Director, Cancer Screening, Cancer Control Science Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Kimberly S. Andrews; Research Associate, Cancer Control Science Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Chiranjeev Dash, MBBS, MPH; Doctoral Candidate, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.

    US Multi-Society Task Force Members: David A. Lieberman, MD; Chief, Division of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland Veterans Medical Center, Portland, OR; Francis M. Giardiello, MD; John G. Rangos Sr Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Theodore R. Levin, MD; Staff Physician, Gastroenterology Department, Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Medical Center, Walnut Creek, CA; Douglas K. Rex, MD; Professor of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN; Clyde Watkins, Jr, MD; Physician, Capstone Medical Group PC, Lithonia, GA; Sidney J. Winawer, MD; Attending Physician, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

    American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee Members: Beth McFarland, MD; Adjunct Professor, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St Luke's Hospital, Diagnostic Imaging Associates, Chesterfield, MO; Seth Glick, MD; Clinical Professor of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA; Perry Pickhardt, MD; Associate Professor, Radiology Department, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI.

    This article is being published jointly in 2008 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (online: March 5, 2008; print: May/June 2008), Gastroenterology (online: March 31, 2008; print: May, 2008), and Radiology (June, 2008) by the American Cancer Society, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, and the Radiological Society of North America.

    Authors J. Bond, D. Johnson and C.D. Johnson were not included as authors in the CA online version of this paper published on March 5. The authors were subsequently added and will appear in the May/June 2008 printed version of CA along with an erratum. Also, The American Gasteroenterological Association (AGA) Institute was misidentified as the American Gasteroenterology Association in the CA online version of this paper. This will also be corrected in a CA erratum.

    Workgroup members were asked to disclose relationships, including potential financial conflicts of interest. The following was disclosed: D. Lieberman served on the scientific advisory board for Exact Sciences, ending September 30, 2007. B. McFarland receives honoraria for serving on the medical advisory boards for Vital Images and Medicsight. P. Pickhardt serves as a paid consultant to Covidien, Viatronix, Fleet, Medicsight, and Philips. D. Rex receives an honorarium for serving as a speaker and research support for serving as an investigator for Olympus; serves on the scientific advisory board and receives research support for serving as an investigator for Given Imaging; and serves on the scientific advisory boards for Avantis, NeoGuide, G.I. View, and American BioOptics. M. Rodriguez–Bigas receives an honorarium for serving on the speaker's bureau for Genzyme. R. Wender serves on the scientific advisory boards for Epigenomics, GeneNews, and G.I. View, but receives no personal income for doing so.

    The following article contains new recommendations for colorectal cancer screening, the first set we have published since 2003 (Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124:544–560.) The current recommendations have emerged through the participation of multiple national societies, taking into consideration newly emerging technologies. Please note the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMTF) represents the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the American College of Gastroenterology. Commissioned originally by the American Cancer Society, this compendium will be published concurrently in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and reprinted in the June issue of Radiology.

    View full text