Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2576-94.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Jennifer S Lin et al. JAMA. .

Erratum in

  • Incomplete URL.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] JAMA. 2016 Aug 2;316(5):545. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.9941. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27483079 No abstract available.
  • Error in Table Row Alignment and No. of Participants.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] JAMA. 2016 Oct 4;316(13):1412. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13819. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27701639 No abstract available.

Abstract

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States.

Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC.

Data sources: Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016.

Study selection: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Main outcomes and measures: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

Results: Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings.

Conclusions and relevance: Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Colorectal Cancer Screening.
    Holme Ø, Hoff G, Løberg M. Holme Ø, et al. JAMA. 2016 Oct 25;316(16):1714. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13846. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27784085 No abstract available.
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening.
    Pinsky PF, Doroudi M. Pinsky PF, et al. JAMA. 2016 Oct 25;316(16):1715. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13849. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27784086 No abstract available.
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations-Reply.
    Bibbins-Domingo K. Bibbins-Domingo K. JAMA. 2016 Oct 25;316(16):1717. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14930. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27784091 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms