Technological advances: what hope for colorectal
cancer?
Type of article: Review
Boumediene Elhabachi; Mama Sidelmrabet Ben Brahim
Faculty of medicine University of Sidi Bel Abbes,
Algeria
CHU Dr Hassani A.E.K, Algeria
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal
cancers rank third in all cancers. Mass screening has proven effectiveness by
significantly reducing incidence and mortality. If optical colonoscopy is the
reference exam, virtual colonoscopy is an alternative of choice. We evaluate
its first-line position in screening, following technological progress.
Methods: We used
PubMed's electronic search data from 2010. Among the 100 most consulted
articles, have been studied those in English-language and which looked at
screening in the population at average risk aged between 50 and 75 years,
asymptomatic and dealing with optical and virtual colonoscopy. Studies in the
symptomatic, high-risk, or very high-risk population or for diagnostic purposes
were excluded.
Results: in the USA,
studies confirm the trend towards a decrease in incidence and mortality by
colorectal cancers, shifting from 56.7 per 100,000 and 23.6 deaths respectively
in 1992 to 36.5 per 100,000 and 14 deaths in 2015, thanks to the means of
screening including the endoscopy. Although optical colonoscopy is the standard
exam, virtual colonoscopy, with a specificity of 90% and a sensitivity of 85%,
is becoming more and more a first-line means of screening for colorectal
cancers.
Conclusion: Thus,
first-line endoscopic screening has proved its effectiveness in reducing
morbidity and mortality by this cancer. However, the virtual endoscopy chosen
by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as a means of screening will
undoubtedly constitute a strategy for the future, particularly in developing
countries.
Keywords: colorectal cancers; screening; modern endoscopy;
virtual colonoscopy.
|
Corresponding author:Boumediene
Elhabachi Faculty of
medicine University of
Sidi Bel Abbes,
Algeria, email: b.elhabachi@yahoo.fr. Received: 23 February 2019, Accepted: 29 Mars, 2019,
English editing 29 Mars, 2019, Published 01 April 2019. Screened by iThenticate..©2017-2019 KNOWLEDGE
KINGDOM PUBLISHING. |
1. INTRODUCTION
With more than 1 million diagnosed cases
per year worldwide and a mortality of more than 500,000 [1], colorectal cancers
(CRC) are a public health problem [2]. They are sporadic in 70 to 80% of cases,
occur in a family context in 20 to 30%
[3] of cases and are linked to a genetic
predisposition in 5 to 10% of cases [4]. Depending on the risk of developing
CRC [5-8], we distinguish the group at:
- Average risk: [9] to which belongs any
person over the age of 50, without any other associated risk factor of CRC
[10].
- High risk: higher than 5% throughout life
and in which we find people with personal or family history of adenoma or CRC
[11] as well as people with chronic inflammatory bowel disease [12-15] (chronic
inflammatory rectocolitis or Crohn's disease).
- Very high risk: characterized by genetic
mutations [8, 16] and in this case it is hereditary cancers which represent 5%
of all CRC [17].
While colonoscopy surveillance does not
pose an indication problem for high and very high risk groups [6, 7], this is
not the case for the average risk group [18]. Advances in technology have
enabled the development of numerous means including
high definition endoscopy coupled with virtual chromoendoscopy and virtual
colonoscopy, which must be optimized to obtain the best results in terms of
lives saved.
2. Mthods
Colonoscopy explores the entire colon and rectum.Rectosigmoïdoscopy allows endoscopic examination of the rectum and left colon (up to the left colic angle), the development site of 3/4 CRC. Endoscopy reduces CRC mortality through early diagnosis[4] and especially the detection of precancerous lesions that are polyps[5] (by resecting them preventing their progression to cancer). Colonoscopy has allowed the USA to reduce the incidence of CRC by 70 to 90% [6]. This reduction is significant for left lesions, less for right colon cancers [7, 8].
The detection of polyps can be difficult because of:- The Size. They can be hidden by colic folds.
- The appearance of the polyp. A polyp can be pediculated projecting into the lumen or sessile with a more or less wide implantation base or even plan aspect and in this case the detection is even more difficult.
All polyps do not degenerate and the risk is related to the histological type, namely adenomatous polyps with villous component and scallop polyps (the latter predominate in the right colon and are usually sessile), the presence of severe dysplasia, and size of the polyp [9, 10]. Polyps with hyperplasia of small size (less than 1 cm), especially those located in the rectum or sigmoid, do not present any risk of malignant transformation [11, 12] .
In the age of modern technology and in the case of colorectal cancer, the purpose of the examinations is to detect polyps at risk and resect them. This supposes that we can recognize them. We can also remove without analysis (no anatomopathological study) polyps that are certainly safe with a cost saving [13]. This is the strategy called DISCARD of "Detect InSpect ChAracterize Resect and Discard" or "Characterize, Resect and Discard". This strategy is feasible [14] and safe [15] because we can count on modern technology. It is possible to recognize polyps certainly safe, hyperplastic type, small and localized in the rectum or sigmoid and abandon them; this allows even more economy. This is the strategy called "Characterize and Leave" or "Detect-and-leave" or "Detect-and-Disregard".
These very innovative approaches have
been made possible by technological advances. Endoscopes provide high
definition images (2,000,000 pixels). To better analyze the colonic surface and
find the polyps we have the indigo carmine vital staining or chromoendoscopy
(essential for the surveillance of chronic inflammatory bowel diseases) and
virtual chromoendoscopy using integrated systems including NBI (Narrow Band
Imaging). The principle of virtual
We studied the 100 most cited articles
and the 20 most cited articles per year [19]. In order to reinforce our study
and not to ignore recent publications, which are necessarily less cited and
whose results are a reflection of technological progress, we conducted a search
using the Pubmed database over the period from 2010 through 31 January 2019,
using the keywords: "colorectal screening", "Colonography,
Computed Tomo-graphy," "virtual colonoscopy," "optical
colonoscopy". We studied the recommendations and their justifications of
the learned society NCCN [6, 7] and US Preventive Services Task Force [10, 20].
-
Inclusion
criteria, this study included articles in the English language that deal
exclusively with colorectal screening in the general population aged 50 to 75
years, in both sexes, with no family or personal history of CRC or adenoma, or
personal history of inflammatory bowel disease. These studies, which may be
comparative, must necessarily deal with the so-called direct screening means,
structural or endoscopic, namely virtual and optical colonoscopy.
-
Exclusion
criteria were excluded studies that deal with the diagnosis of CRC or
symptomatic subjects as well as those concerning subjects under 50 years old,
in the case of a contraindication of a means of screening, and in the case
where a study does not evaluate a tool as a means of screening. All studies
evaluating screening in the high or very high risk population were excluded.
· Studies dealing with the diagnosis of CRC.
· Studies concerning subjects under 50 years old.
· Studies not dealing with the evaluation of a tool as a means of
screening. Studies evaluating screening in the high or very high risk
population.
· In cases of contraindication of a means of screening.
3. MEANS
Endoscopy
Optical colonoscopy (OC) explores the
entire colon and rectum. Rectosigmoidoscopy allows endoscopic examination of
the rectum and left colon (up to the left colic angle), the development site of
¾ of CRC. Endoscopy reduces CRC mortality through early diagnosis [21]
especially the detection of precancerous lesions that are polyps [11] (by
resecting them preventing their progression to cancer). OC has allowed the USA
to reduce the incidence of CRC
[17] from
76 to 90% [22] in a population with endoscopy. This reduction is significant
for left lesions less for right colon cancers [23, 24].
The CO with dual diagnostic and
therapeutic advantage [9] must first detect a polyp and, in a second time,
characterize it.
The detection of polyps can be difficult
because of:
-
Their size, they can
be hidden by colic folds.
-
-The appearance of the
polyp. A polyp can be pediculated projecting into the light or sessile based
implantation more or less wide or even plan aspect and in this case the
detection is even more difficult.
Modern endoscopes make it possible to
obtain high definition images "HD" (2,000,000 pixels). Some studies
have not found a difference in the detection rate of adenomas (DRA) or polyps
(DRP) between standard colonoscopy and HD [25, 26].
A multicenter study showed that DRA was
higher with HD colonoscopies, especially for flat adenomas and right colon
[27]. White light with HD images seems to increase the DRA by 3.5% [28]. In
order to increase the detection rate, have been made available to endoscopists:
Ø Coloscopes with enlarged vision:
-The Full-Spectrum Endoscopy system has
the particularity of having 3 cameras which allows a 330 ° angle of view
compared to 140 to 170 ° for the other endoscopes and this system seems
interesting for the detection of polyps behind the folds and to the internal
side of the colic angles with less adenoma missed [29].
-The Extra-Wide-Angle-View Colonoscope
with wide field of view thanks to two cameras placed on the sides (144 - 232 °)
and one at the end of the endoscope (140 °) and this system seems to improve
the DRA by 22 % [30, 31].
-The third eye or Third Eye Retroscope.
The retro vision is often used in the rectum to analyze the anal area and not
to miss lesion at the bottom caecal [32].
Ø Endoscopes with balloon system.
Ø Colonoscopy assisted by cap.
All polyps do not degenerate [8, 33, 34]
and the risk is related to the histological type, namely adenomatous polyps
with villous component and serrated polyps (the latter predominate in the right
colon and are usually sessile), the presence of severe dysplasia, and size of
the polyp [35, 36]. Hyperplastic polyps of small size (less than 1 cm)
especially those located in the rectum or sigmoid pose no risk of malignant
transformation [7, 37].
Very innovative approaches have been
made possible by technological progress. In the age of modern technology and in
the case of CRC the purpose of the examinations is to detect polyps at risk and
resect them. This supposes that we can recognize them. We can also remove
without analyzing the (so no pathologic study) polyps that are certainly safe
with a cost saving [38]. This is the so-called DISCARD strategy of "Detect InSpect
ChAracterize Resect and Discard Or "Characterize, Resect, and Leave". This
strategy is feasible [39] and safe [40] because we can count on modern
technology. It is possible to recognize polyps certainly safe, hyperplastic
type, small and localized in the rectum or sigmoid and abandon them which
allows even more economy. This is the so-called strategy: Characterize and
Leave or "Detect-and-leave" or "Detect-and-disregard".
To better analyze the colonic surface
and find the polyps we have the indigo carmine vital staining or
chromoendoscopy [41] and virtual chromoendoscopy using integrated systems
including NBI (Narrow Band Imaging) [42-44]. The principle of virtual
chromoendoscopy relies on the exploitation of the physical and optical
properties of certain specific bands of the white light spectrum.
The endoscopy of the modern era must
characterize the polyps detected hence the notion of optical biopsy [45]. If
for the detection of polyps, the expertise of the operator remains the
essential element and although the detection rate is improved by HD modern
endoscopes including the right, it should be specified that the
characterization which consists in predicting the histological diagnosis of
polyps has, with the NBI and without Zoom, a diagnostic accuracy of 96 to 98%
for polyps less than 1 cm [46, 47].
The high magnification optical Zoom up
to X60 or even X400 allows a microscopic scale analysis of the mucosal surface
indeed subcellular analysis (X1000) by endo-microscopy by mini probe allowing a
histological analysis in real time [48, 49]. In combination with the NBI the diagnostic
accuracy approaches the histopathology [49].
The NBI associated with a high optical
magnification used by Japanese teams allows a diagnostic accuracy higher than
96% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96% [50].
The classification Nice [51] (N BI International
Colorectal Endoscopic) is widely used [52]. It is based on NBI analysis without
zooming the color of the polyp, the presence of vessels (and their diameter)
and the pattern of the mucosa. It makes it possible to distinguish the polyps
hyperplastic (type 1), adenomas (type 2) and infiltrating cancers s (type 3).
Virtual colonoscopy or Computed
tomography colonography (CTC) :
It is a colon scan with CO2 insufflation
that can be performed without intravenous injection. This examination whose
performance improves in parallel with technological advances has shown since
few years 90% of polyps larger than 1 cm found by optical colonoscopy (OC),
discovered some lesions not perceived by CO, for a total a sensitivity and a
specificity of 90% for polyps larger than 1 cm [53-55]. The CTC is very
specific even for small polyps [56] but the sensitivity varies widely according
to the studies [20]. These differences could be explained by the types of
scanners, detectors, the thickness of the cuts [57], the terms of acquisition
and are based on readers [58] and their expertise [59, 60]. Overall, the CTC
has excellent sensitivity and specificity for polyps> 10 mm in particular
adenomatous and early cancers, hence its place in screening [53-55, 61-65] even
if the sensitivity decreases with the size of the polyp [66-69]. The detection
of polyps is enhanced with computer assistance (Computer- Aided polyp Detection
(CAD) program) [70] especially for small polyps [71]. Interpretation time is
reduced [72, 73] and detection seems comparable to that of OC according to some
studies for adenomatous polyps > or = 8 mm [74]. However flat polyps are
difficult to detect [75] but this should not be an obstacle for the CTC as a
means of screening including first-line [76]. This assistance does not replace
the expertise that the radiologist must have [59] whose experience in
gastrointestinal radiology is an undeniable advantage that can not be bridged
by the single learning curve [77]. The interpretation is done by a radiologist
who has the required expertise [9] the consequences of inadequate
interpretation can be severe. CTC screening adherence [78] is significantly
higher compared to OC, which probably identifies more polyps per 100 people.
The diagnostic performance of advanced neoplasia per 100 participants is
equivalent, which justifies the use of the both
means of screening in the average-risk population [79]. Indeed OC remains the
reference exam and the most used in the USA [80] and whose sensitivity and
specificity are higher compared to the CTC [81]. Higher CTC participation rate
[82] fills this difference globally leading to a similar detection of advanced
neoplasias [83, 84].
The CTC is sensitive, especially after
colon preparation even at minima [85] and ingestion of contrast product
(gastrographine) which can be sufficient in itself for colonic preparation
[86]. Currently even in low doses that do not alter its sensitivity [87] CTC
does not require rigorous preparation of the colon [88]. As the prevalence of
CRC is low (3.5 to 4.5%), a first-line CTC is desirable to avoid the
complications of negative or white OC [89].
The detection rate by CTC for first-line
screening is equivalent to the one of optical colonoscopy but the rate of
complications and polypectomy is lower, which justifies the use of CTC as a
means of screening and OC as a therapeutic means [90]. The complications of CTC
are rare, especially the perforations that must be feared in elderly people
with concomitant colic diseases [91].
The good negative predictive value of
the CTC must reduce the indications of OC thus reducing the inconvenience of OC
screening and cost [61, 92, 93]. It has a good concordance with the OC [92], is
an effective option, safe, affordable, available, repeatable, fast and cost
effective for colorectal cancer screening [94], that is why it was proposed in
2018 as a means of first-line screening [7, 83, 95].
It should be kept in mind that the
detection rate of serrated polyps at risk is significantly higher for OC
(facilitated by chromoendoscopy) compared with CTC (facilitated by contrast
labeling) [96, 97].
Extra colic discoveries can be important
[98, 99], beneficial but cause additional costs [100] that can be amortized by
the management of serious illnesses [101].
It could cost up to 50% cheaper than the
OC if its indications became broader to meet demand [102] and currently,
compared to colonoscopy, its cost seems competitive [102, 103].
CTC allows better localization of
lesions, which is important for surgery [104]. It has been an important part of
colorectal exploration for more than ten years [105, 106]. There are currently
wider indications for screening and first-line prevention of CRC [7, 106].
If for polyps of more than 1 cm
discovered in CTC the indication of colonoscopy is certain, it will be more
mitigated for polyps of 6 to 9 mm. Exploration and polypectomy are required for
many polyps but for one or two polyps 6 to 9 mm, CTC control is possible
because 38% of these polyps remain stable, 27% regress and only 35% become
advanced [107]. In comparison with other screening techniques, virtual
colonoscopy offers a safe option especially useful when colonoscopy is
contraindicated [108].
Stool Tests -
Stool-Based Tests
These tests are exclusively reserved for
screening in the so-called average risk asymptomatic population. They consist
of looking for occult blood in the stool by guaiac test or by immunological
test and looking for alterations of the abnormal exfoliated DNA. These tests
are not invasive and does not require any preparation.
Tests for occult blood tests in the
stool
Two tests are available namely to find
the occult blood in the stool by guaiac test and by immunological test.
The
guaiac test (Hemoccult II® test and Hemoccult II Sensa test)
This gFOBT test "Fecal Occult Blood
Test", detects the heme via a peroxidase reaction.
The Hemoccult II® and Hemoccult II Sensa
tests are simple, inexpensive, painless, reproducible, reliable and validated,
thus meeting the criteria necessary for a mass screening test.
In France the Hemoccult II test would
detect only 20% of advanced polyps, 1 out of 2 cancers, decrease mortality by
16 to 18% at 10 years with a national observance of only 30% [109].
The Hemoccult-SENSA test is based on the
Hemoccult II test on the detection of heme via a peroxidase reaction. It has a
sensitivity of 64 to 80% for CRC but lower for adenomas [110].
These tests have the disadvantage of not
detecting tumors that bleed very little, intermittently or not at all. The
false positives are due to the positive reaction with the nonhuman heme (food)
and the blood of gastrointestinal origin thus upper tract [7].
The
immunological test "Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs)"
This test (iFOBT) detects the presence
of human globin through the use of anti-globin monoclonal or polyclonal
antibodies [9]. It has advantages over the Guaiac test [111] and is superior to
it in terms of participation rate, positivity rate and detection rate
[112-114]. It is specific for blood of colic origin, ruling out false positives
for bleeding from the upper digestive tract [110], globin is rapidly digested
in the stomach and the small intestine. This test allows an automated and
reproducible reading.
Screening combining a positive FITs
(iFOBT) test and colonoscopy allows the detection of 2 to 2.5 times more
cancers and 3 to 4 times more advanced adenomas than the combination of a positive
Guaiac test and colonoscopy [18]. The detection of cancer in-situ and stages I
and II would be 71% whereas it is 55% for the Gaïac test; A test (FIT) is
significantly superior to the guaiac test as a screening test in the
average-risk population [115, 116] and should replace the gFOBT [110].
Screening by (FIT) leads to a reduction in mortality and the incidence of CRC
[117, 118].
The gFOBT and iFOBT tests should not be
used individually and certainly not in symptomatic people.
The abnormal DNA
analysis test in the stool
The identification of abnormal DNA in
the stool is a method of early diagnosis of colorectal cancer through searching
for the APC gene mutation [6, 7, 18]. These are molecular tests. This method,
certainly very promising in the future, is not considered to date as a well
codified screening method [7].
Non invasive screening
by the Septin-9 test
The SEPT9 gene codes for the SEPT9
protein. These proteins control cell growth and prevent uncontrolled divisions.
The SEPT9 gene is considered a tumor suppressor [119]. Hypermethylation can
occur in the promising gene and
silencing it [119]. Epi pro Colon® 2.0
(Second Generation Test) allows the detection at the plasma level of methylated
septin9[120]. The presence in the plasma of methylated septin9 is a bio-marker
of the risk of neoplastic colic [121-124]. A positive test indicates a risk of
CRC and an optical colonoscopy is recommended [125]. The sensitivity of the
SEPT9 test would be equivalent to that of FIT but its specificity would be
lower [126]. The sensitivity of SEPT9 for advanced adenomas would be lower
compared to FIT [127]. The combination of tests is increasingly used in CRC
screening. The FIT test associated with SEPT9 increases sensitivity and
specificity [125]. This test was approved in 2016 by the FDA for CRC screening
and the NCCN estimates that its sensitivity and specificity are lower than
those of other tests [7].
MR Colonography
Studies on colo-MRI for screening are
limited. One study showed a sensitivity and specificity greater than 75% for
adenomas and cancers but which remain lower than those of colonoscopy [128].
Lack of equipment and cost would be unhelpful factors for this technique in
screening and prevention [18].
4. Discussion :
Colorectal cancers mainly develop in
subjects over 50 years of age who have no known risk factors [9, 10, 20]. Mass
screening is aimed at this population aged 50 to 75 years [5-7, 10, 20, 80].
Fecal occult blood testing (Hemoccult II, Hemoccult SENSA or FIT) reduced CRC
mortality [17, 129].
People screened in the US, where
endoscopy is the primary means of screening and prevention, have a reduction in
CRC estimated between 76 and 90% [22, 130].
Mass screening is a public health
action, not an individual one. People at high or very high risk are excluded
from mass screening and must be individually screened by optical colonoscopy
according to the recommendations of learned societies [6, 7, 10, 20].
In the USA, screening is done in
different ways. Flexible Sigmoidoscopy [23, 131] and OC have both reduced CRC
mortality [132]. Virtual colonoscopy was introduced in 2018 as a means of
first-line screening [7]. Overall CTC is not as sensitive and specific as CO
but can be used for screening in the average risk population [133] because
effective enough.
American recommendations include
colonoscopy every 10 years, fecal occult blood test by annual immunohistochemical
test (FIT), a 10-year Sigmoidoscopy coupled with annual FIT and virtual
colonoscopy (CTC) every 5 years in subjects aged 50 to 75 years [6, 7, 20,
134]. These processes offer the same survival benefit in a years and a benefit
ratio - equivalent risk [7, 134] in the case of screening. The CTC is better
accepted by those screened and found to be less painful [135]. Both CTC and
flexible Sigmoidoscopy are well accepted for CRC screening, but reduced
discomfort associated with colonic preparation may improve participation in CTC
screening [136, 137]. Indeed, the inconvenience of the examination and the
disadvantages of the preparation are cited as the main reasons for refusal of screening [138]. The preference
of the CTC is related to the absence of sedation, the speed of the procedure
and the least physical constraint
[78]. Unfortunately,
this examination remains underutilized while it represents an ideal balance
between the minimum invasiveness and the performance [139]. The CTC can be an
excellent exam that filters the persons with a good health economy avoiding
negative colonoscopies and their complications although rare and by
systematizing small diminutive polyps (< 6mm) without even taking them on
the record [140, 141]. Regarding cost, CTC like other means is more cost
effective than lack of screening [142, 143] and in the USA, with 75% compliance
OC and CTC may reduce the incidence of CCR 46 to 54% [144] which represents an
immense health economy. In addition, the CTC screening every 5 years is,
according to a study, more effective than the OC every ten years [143]. The CTC
is a relevant test that continues to develop to provide a high diagnostic
accuracy that will make the examination cost-competitive with respect to OC
[143]. Indeed, the more the subjects are referred to the OC after CTC and the
more the advantage is to the OC and even to equal sensitivity the advantage
remains for the OC [144]. Given these data, regarding the difficulty of
proposing blood tests in the stool in developing countries and given the
problems of sensitivity and specificity of these tests, which, in case of false
positive, lead to white OC. Having regarding to the impossibility to offer out
hand a screening by OC, if only by lack of endoscopists and dedicated blocks,
it would be reasonable to propose a screening with virtual coloscopy. Its sensitivity
and specificity for polyps of more than 1 cm may degenerate are excellent. In
addition, this examination is easier to practice provided that radiologists
with specific training are available. CTC has the dual advantage of being more
sensitive and specific than stool tests and has better acceptability than
optical colonoscopy. Indeed the latter is more invasive, with several negative
examinations and causes a work stoppage at least on the day of the examination.
5.Conclusion :
Although easily preventable, CRC ranks
second to lung cancer in terms of overall mortality. However, this situation
could be reversed if screening tests to effectively detect advanced adenomas
and early cancers were widely applied. In developing countries screening and
diagnosis of CRC would be significantly improved by paying particular attention
to the mastery of virtual colonoscopy coupled with excellent expertise of
endoscopists.
The aging of the population, population
growth and exposure to additional risk factors (westernization of our way of
life) explain the likely increase in the incidence of CRCs. Training of virtual
colonoscopy radiologists must be considered to meet this challenge. Virtual
colonoscopy is fast and without contraindications or major complications. It
must select subjects with abnormalities under a colonoscopy. It goes without
saying that this strategy will only achieve its objectives if expert
endoscopists and appropriate equipment are available.
6. Conflict of
intereststatement
We certify that there is no conflict of
interest with any financial organization inthe subject matter or materials
discussed in this manuscript.
7.Authors’ biography
No Biography
8.References
1.Corrêa., R.d.S., et al., Rectal cancer
survival in a Brazilian Cancer Reference Unit. JCOL, 2016. 36(4): p.
203-207.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcol.2016.04.015
2.Organization., W.H., International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Available at: http://www-dep.iarc.fr/
Accessed December 3, 2011, 2011.
3.Jasperson, K.W., et al., Hereditary
and familial colon cancer. Gastroenterology, 2010. 138(6): p. 2044-58.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2010.01.054 PMid:20420945 PMCid:PMC3057468
4.Markowitz, S.D. and M.M. Bertagnolli,
Molecular origins of cancer: Molecular basis of colorectal cancer. N Engl J
Med, 2009. 361(25): p. 2449-60. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0804588
PMid:20018966 PMCid:PMC2843693
5.[Consensus conference: Prevention
Screening and Management of the Colonic Cancers. Paris, France, January 29-30,
1998. Proceedings]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol, 1998. 22(3 Suppl): p. S1-295.
6.National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): colorectal
cancer screening.2016.
7.National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): colorectal
cancer screening.2018.
8.Levin, B., et al., 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.
Gastroenterology, 2008. 134(5): p. 1570-95.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002 PMid:18384785
9.Moore, J.S. and T.H. Aulet, Colorectal
Cancer Screening. Surg Clin North Am, 2017. 97(3): p. 487-502.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2017.01.001 PMid:28501242
10.Bibbins-Domingo, K., et al.,
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force
Recommendation Statement. JAMA, 2016. 315(23): p. 2564-2575.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5989 PMid:27304597
11.Winawer, S.J., et al., Risk of
colorectal cancer in the families of patients with adenomatous polyps. National
Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med, 1996. 334(2): p. 82-7.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199601113340204 PMid:8531963
12.Eaden, J.A., K.R. Abrams, and J.F.
Mayberry, The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis.
Gut, 2001. 48(4): p. 526-35. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.48.4.526 PMid:11247898
PMCid:PMC1728259
13.Farraye, F.A., et al., AGA medical
position statement on the diagnosis and management of colorectal neoplasia in
inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology, 2010. 138(2): p. 738-45. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.12.035
PMid:20141808
14.Tsaitas, C., A. Semertzidou, and E.
Sinakos, Update on inflammatory bowel disease in patients with primary
sclerosing cholangitis. World J Hepatol, 2014. 6(4): p. 178-87.
https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v6.i4.178 PMid:24799986 PMCid:PMC4009473
15.Wang, R. and R.W. Leong, Primary
sclerosing cholangitis as an independent risk factor for colorectal cancer in
the context of inflammatory bowel disease: a review of the literature. World J
Gastroenterol, 2014. 20(27): p. 8783-9.
16.Wells, K. and P.E. Wise, Hereditary
Colorectal Cancer Syndromes. Surg Clin North Am, 2017. 97(3): p. 605-625.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2017.01.009 PMid:28501250
17.Lauby-Secretan, B., et al., The IARC
Perspective on Colorectal Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med, 2018. 378(18): p.
1734-1740. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1714643 PMid:29580179
18.Pox, C.P., Controversies in
colorectal cancer screening. Digestion, 2014. 89(4): p. 274-81.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000363287 PMid:25034478
19.Mohammed, M.F., et al., Trends in CT
colonography: bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles. Br J
Radiol, 2017. 90(1080): p. 20160755. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160755
20.Lin, J.S., et al., Screening for
Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US
Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 2016. 315(23): p. 2576-94.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.3332 PMid:27305422
21.Cancer Stat Facts: Colorectal Cancer.
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html, 2018.
22.Winawer, S.J., et al., Prevention of
colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study
Workgroup. N Engl J Med, 1993. 329(27): p. 1977-81.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199312303292701 PMid:8247072
23. Nishihara,
R., et al., Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower
endoscopy. N Engl J Med, 2013. 369(12): p. 1095-105.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1301969 PMid:24047059 PMCid:PMC3840160
24.Shaukat, A., et al., Long-term
mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med, 2013. 369(12):
p. 1106-14. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1300720 PMid:24047060
25.Longcroft-Wheaton, G., et al.,
High-definition vs. standard-definition colonoscopy in the characterization of
small colonic polyps: results from a randomized trial. Endoscopy, 2012. 44(10):
p. 905-10. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1310004 PMid:22893132
26.Pellise, M., et al., Impact of
wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia:
a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology, 2008. 135(4): p. 1062-8.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.06.090 PMid:18725223
27.Rastogi, A., et al., Randomized,
controlled trial of standard-definition white-light, high-definition
white-light, and narrow-band imaging colonoscopy for the detection of colon
polyps and prediction of polyp histology. Gastrointest Endosc, 2011. 74(3): p.
593-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.050 PMid:21802078
28.Subramanian, V., et al., High
definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of
colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy, 2011. 43(6): p. 499-505.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1256207 PMid:21360420
29.Gralnek, I.M., et al., Standard
forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international,
multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol, 2014. 15(3):
p. 353-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70020-8
30.Adler, A., et al., Latest generation,
wide-angle, high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection rate. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2012. 10(2): p. 155-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2011.10.026 PMid:22056301
31.Papanikolaou, I.S., et al., Lower
adenoma miss rate with FUSE vs. conventional colonoscopy with proximal
retroflexion: a randomized back-to-back trial. Endoscopy, 2017. 49(5): p.
468-475. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-124415 PMid:28107765
32.Rex, D.K. and M. Khashab,
Colonoscopic polypectomy in retroflexion. Gastrointest Endosc, 2006. 63(1): p.
144-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2005.09.016 PMid:16377332
33.Pidala, M.J. and M.V. Cusick, The
Difficult Colorectal Polyp. Surg Clin North Am, 2017. 97(3): p. 515-527.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2017.01.003 PMid:28501244
34.Morson, B., President's address. The
polyp-cancer sequence in the large bowel. Proc R Soc Med, 1974. 67(6 Pt 1): p.
451-7.
35.Eide, T.J., Natural history of
adenomas. World J Surg, 1991. 15(1): p. 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01658952
PMid:1994603
36.Takayama, T., et al., Aberrant crypt
foci of the colon as precursors of adenoma and cancer. N Engl J Med, 1998.
339(18): p. 1277-84. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199810293391803 PMid:9791143
37.Rex, D.K., et al., Serrated lesions
of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J
Gastroenterol, 2012. 107(9): p. 1315-29; quiz 1314, 1330.
38.Hassan, C., P.J. Pickhardt, and D.K.
Rex, A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of
colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2010. 8(10): p. 865-9,
869 e1-3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018
39.Ignjatovic, A., et al., Optical
diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect
ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study.
Lancet Oncol, 2009. 10(12): p. 1171-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70329-8
40.Pickhardt, P.J., et al., Low rates of
cancer or high-grade dysplasia in colorectal polyps collected from computed
tomography colonography screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2010. 8(7): p.
610-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2010.03.007 PMid:20304097
41.Eisen, G.M., et al., High-resolution
chromoendoscopy for classifying colonic polyps: a multicenter study.
Gastrointest Endosc, 2002. 55(6): p. 687-94. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2002.123619
PMid:11979251
42.Machida, H., et al., Narrow-band
imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal mucosal lesions: a pilot study.
Endoscopy, 2004. 36(12): p. 1094-8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-826040
PMid:15578301
43.Singh, R., et al., Narrow-band
imaging with dual focus magnification in differentiating colorectal neoplasia.
Dig Endosc, 2013. 25 Suppl 2: p. 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12075
44.Sano, Y., et al., Narrow-band imaging
(NBI) magnifying endoscopic classification of colorectal tumors proposed by the
Japan NBI Expert Team. Dig Endosc, 2016. 28(5): p. 526-33.
https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12644 PMid:26927367
45.Kaminski, M.F., et al., Advanced
imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European
Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy, 2014. 46(5):
p. 435-49. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1365348 PMid:24639382
46.Rastogi, A., et al., High accuracy of
narrow band imaging without magnification for the real-time characterization of
polyp histology and its comparison with high-definition white light
colonoscopy: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol, 2009. 104(10): p.
2422-30. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.403 PMid:19584829
47.Rex, D.K., et al., The American
Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of
Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the
histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc, 2011. 73(3): p.
419-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.023 PMid:21353837
48.Wanders, L.K., et al., Diagnostic
performance of narrowed spectrum endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging, and
confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of colonic polyps: a
meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol, 2013. 14(13): p. 1337-47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70509-6
49.Shahid, M.W., et al., Diagnostic
accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow band imaging
for small colorectal polyps: a feasibility study. Am J Gastroenterol, 2012.
107(2): p. 231-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2011.376 PMid:22068663
50.Kuruvilla, N., et al., A prospective
dual-center proof-of-principle study evaluating the incremental benefit of
narrow-band imaging with a fixed zoom function in real-time prediction of polyp
histology. Can we resect and discard? Gastrointest Endosc, 2015. 82(2): p.
362-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.014 PMid:25841577
51.Hayashi, N., et al., Endoscopic
prediction of deep submucosal invasive carcinoma: validation of the narrow-band
imaging international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) classification. Gastrointest
Endosc, 2013. 78(4): p. 625-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.185
PMid:23910062
52.Hewett, D.G., et al., Validation of a
simple classification system for endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal
polyps using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology, 2012. 143(3): p. 599-607
e1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.006
53.Graser, A., et al., Comparison of CT
colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the
detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut, 2009. 58(2):
p. 241-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2008.156448 PMid:18852257
54.Johnson, C.D., et al., Accuracy of CT
colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med, 2008.
359(12): p. 1207-17. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0800996 PMid:18799557
PMCid:PMC2654614
55.Pickhardt, P.J., et al., Computed
tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in
asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med, 2003. 349(23): p. 2191-200.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031618 PMid:14657426
56.Mulhall, B.P., G.R. Veerappan, and
J.L. Jackson, Meta-analysis: computed tomographic
colonography. Ann Intern Med, 2005.
142(8): p. 635-50. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-8-200504190-00013
PMid:15838071
57.Macari, M., et al., Colorectal
neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row
CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology, 2002.
224(2): p. 383-92. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2242011382 PMid:12147833
58.Johnson, C.D., et al., Prospective
blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of
colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology, 2003. 125(2): p. 311-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(03)00894-1
59.Halligan, S., et al., Computed
tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and
without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology, 2006. 131(6): p. 1690-
9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2006.09.051
PMid:17087934
60.Pescatore, P., et al., Diagnostic
accuracy and interobserver agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy).
Gut, 2000. 47(1): p. 126-30. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.47.1.126 PMid:10861274
PMCid:PMC1727978
61.Cotton, P.B., et al., Computed
tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with
standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA, 2004.
291(14): p. 1713-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.14.1713 PMid:15082698
62.Hara, A.K., et al., Detection of
colorectal polyps by computed tomographic colography: feasibility of a novel
technique. Gastroenterology, 1996. 110(1): p. 284-90.
https://doi.org/10.1053/gast.1996.v110.pm8536869 PMid:8536869
63.Johnson, C.D., et al., Computerized
tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter
setting. Gastroenterology, 2003. 125(3): p. 688-95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(03)01058-8
64.Sosna, J., et al., CT colonography of
colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2003. 181(6): p.
1593-8. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.6.1811593 PMid:14627580
65.Yee, J., et al., Colorectal
neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300
patients. Radiology, 2001. 219(3): p. 685-92.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn40685 PMid:11376255
66.de Haan, M.C., et al., Diagnostic
value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic
screening population: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol, 2011. 21(8): p. 1747-63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2104-8 PMid:21455818 PMCid:PMC3128257
67.Halligan, S., et al., CT colonography
in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review,
meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting.
Radiology, 2005. 237(3): p. 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373050176
PMid:16304111
68.Hara, A.K., et al., Detection of
colorectal polyps with CT colography: initial assessment of sensitivity and
specificity. Radiology, 1997. 205(1): p. 59-65.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.205.1.9314963 PMid:9314963
69.Laghi, A., et al., Detection of
colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg,
2002. 183(2): p. 124-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00857-
70.Summers, R.M., et al., Colonic
polyps: complementary role of computer-aided detection in CT colonography.
Radiology, 2002. 225(2): p. 391-9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2252011619
PMid:12409571
71.Petrick, N., et al., CT colonography
with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study.
Radiology, 2008. 246(1): p. 148-56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2453062161
PMid:18096536
72.Yoshida, H. and J. Nappi,
Three-dimensional computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of colonic
polyps. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 2001. 20(12): p. 1261-74.
https://doi.org/10.1109/42.974921 PMid:11811826
73.Yoshida, H., et al., Computer-aided
diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. Radiographics,
2002. 22(4): p. 963-79. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.22.4.g02jl16963 PMid:12110726
74.Summers, R.M., et al., Computed
tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening
population. Gastroenterology, 2005. 129(6): p. 1832-44.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.08.054 PMid:16344052 PMCid:PMC1576342
75.Fidler, J.L., et al., Detection of
flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography. Abdom Imaging, 2002. 27(3): p.
292-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-001-0171-z PMid:12173360
76.Pickhardt, P.J., et al., Flat
colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT
virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2004. 183(5): p. 1343-7.
https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831343 PMid:15505301
77.Taylor, S.A., et al., CT
colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur
Radiol, 2004. 14(6): p. 1025-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2262-z
PMid:14872280
78.Thomeer, M., et al., Patient
acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol, 2002.
12(6): p. 1410-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300101082
79.Stoop, E.M., et al., Participation
and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in
population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled
trial. Lancet Oncol, 2012. 13(1): p. 55-64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70283-2
80.Vital signs: colorectal cancer
screening test use--United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2013.
62(44): p. 881-8.
81.Duarte, R.B., et al., Computed
tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for the
diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag,
2018. 14: p. 349-360.
https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S152147 PMid:29503554 PMCid:PMC5826249
82.van der Meulen, M.P., et al.,
Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography
Screening with Participation Rates and Costs. Radiology, 2018. 287(3): p. 901-
911. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162359
PMid:29485322
83.Sali, L. and D. Regge, CT
colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European
trials. Br J Radiol, 2016. 89(1068): p. 20160517.
https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160517
84.Scott, R.G., et al., Community-based
screening by colonoscopy or computed tomographic colonography in asymptomatic
average-risk subjects. Am J Gastroenterol, 2004. 99(6): p. 1145-51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30253.x PMid:15180739
85.Sali, L., et al., Reduced and
Full-Preparation CT Colonography, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Colonoscopy
for Population Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial. J Natl
Cancer Inst, 2016. 108(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv319
86.Callstrom, M.R., et al., CT
colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology, 2001.
219(3): p. 693-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn22693
PMid:11376256
87.Iannaccone, R., et al., Detection of
colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography
compared with conventional colonoscopy. Radiology, 2003. 229(3): p. 775-81.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2293021399 PMid:14657315
88.Iannaccone, R., et al., Computed
tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of
colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology, 2004. 127(5): p. 1300-11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2004.08.025
PMid:15520999
89.Pickhardt, P.J., et al., Colorectal
cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection-- systematic review and
meta-analysis. Radiology, 2011. 259(2): p. 393-405.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101887 PMid:21415247 PMCid:PMC3079122
90.Kim, D.H., et al., CT colonography
versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med, 2007.
357(14): p. 1403-12. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa070543 PMid:17914041
91.Sosna, J., et al., Colonic
perforation at CT colonography: assessment of risk in a multicenter large
cohort. Radiology, 2006. 239(2): p. 457-63.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392050287 PMid:16543590
92.Pickhardt, P.J., et al., Screening
for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st
year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology, 2006. 241(2): p. 417-
25. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2412052007 PMid:16982816
93.Pineau, B.C., et al., Virtual
colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of
patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology, 2003. 125(2): p. 304-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(03)00885-0
94.Patel, J.D. and K.J. Chang, The role
of virtual colonoscopy in colorectal screening. Clin Imaging, 2016. 40(2): p.
315-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.07.009 PMid:26298421
95.Guinigundo, A., Is the Virtual
Colonoscopy a Replacement for Optical Colonoscopy? Semin Oncol Nurs, 2018.
34(2): p. 132-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2018.03.004
96.JE, I.J., et al., CT-Colonography vs.
Colonoscopy for Detection of High-Risk Sessile Serrated Polyps. Am J
Gastroenterol, 2016. 111(4): p. 516-22. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.58
PMid:27021193
97.Kim, D.H., et al., Flat Serrated
Polyps at CT Colonography: Relevance, Appearance, and Optimizing
Interpretation. Radiographics, 2018. 38(1): p. 60-
74. ttps://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170110
PMid:29148927
98.Gluecker, T.M., et al., Extracolonic
findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening
population. Gastroenterology, 2003. 124(4): p. 911-6.
https://doi.org/10.1053/gast.2003.50158 PMid:12671887
99.Hara, A.K., et al., Incidental
extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Radiology, 2000. 215(2): p. 353-7.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ap33353 PMid:10796907
100.Hellstrom, M., M.H. Svensson, and A.
Lasson, Extracolonic and incidental findings on CT colonography (virtual
colonoscopy). AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2004. 182(3): p. 631-8.
https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.3.1820631 PMid:14975961
101.Pickhardt, P.J., et al., Unsuspected
extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic
impact. Radiology, 2008. 249(1): p. 151-9.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2491072148 PMid:18796673
102.Sawhney, T.G., et al., Computed
Tomography Colonography Less Costly Than Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer
Screening of Commercially Insured Patients. Am Health Drug Benefits, 2018.
11(7): p. 353-361.
103.Kriza, C., et al., An international
review of the main cost-effectiveness drivers of virtual colonography versus
conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: is the tide changing
due to adherence? Eur J Radiol, 2013. 82(11): p. e629-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.07.019
104.Offermans, T., et al., Preoperative
segmental localization of colorectal carcinoma: CT colonography vs. optical
colonoscopy. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2017. 43(11):
p. 2105-2111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.09.016 PMid:28965706
105.Rockey, D.C., et al., Standards for
gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed
tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology, 2007. 133(3): p. 1005-24.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2007.06.001 PMid:17678924
106.Wolf, A.M.D., et al., Colorectal
cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the
American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018. 68(4): p. 250-281.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21457 PMid:29846947
107. Tutein
Nolthenius, C.J., et al., Evolution of Screen-Detected Small (6-9 mm) Polyps
After a 3-Year Surveillance Interval: Assessment of Growth With CT Colonography
Compared With Histopathology. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015. 110(12): p. 1682-90.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2015.340 PMid:26482858
108.Obaro, A.E., D.N. Burling, and A.A.
Plumb, Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics,
cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress. Br J Radiol, 2018. 91(1090): p.
20180307. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180307
109.Faivre, J., et al., Reduction in
colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French
controlled study. Gastroenterology, 2004. 126(7): p. 1674-80.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2004.02.018 PMid:15188160
110.Allison, J.E., et al., Screening for
colorectal neoplasms with new fecal occult blood tests: update on performance
characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2007. 99(19): p. 1462-70.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm150 PMid:17895475
111.Imperiale, T.F., Noninvasive
screening tests for colorectal cancer. Dig Dis, 2012. 30 Suppl 2: p. 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000341884
112. van
Rossum, L.G., et al., Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal
occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population.
Gastroenterology, 2008. 135(1): p. 82-
90. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040
PMid:18482589
113.Hol, L., et al., Screening for
colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical
faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut, 2010. 59(1): p.
62-
8. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.177089
PMid:19671542
114.Guittet, L., et al., Comparison of a
guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for
colorectal cancer in a general average risk population. Gut, 2007. 56(2): p.
210-4.
https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2006.101428 PMid:16891354 PMCid:PMC1856766
115.Parra-Blanco, A., et al., Diagnostic
accuracy of immunochemical versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests for
colorectal cancer screening. J Gastroenterol, 2010. 45(7): p. 703-12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-010-0214-8 PMid:20157748
116.Park, D.I., et al., Comparison of
guaiac-based and quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood testing in a
population at average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening. Am J
Gastroenterol, 2010. 105(9): p. 2017-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2010.179
PMid:20502450
117.Giorgi Rossi, P., et al., Impact of
Screening Program on Incidence of Colorectal Cancer: A Cohort Study in Italy.
Am J Gastroenterol, 2015. 110(9): p. 1359-66.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2015.240 PMid:26303133
118.Chiu, H.M., et al., Effectiveness of
fecal immunochemical testing in reducing colorectal cancer mortality from the
One Million Taiwanese Screening Program. Cancer, 2015. 121(18): p. 3221-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29462 PMid:25995082 PMCid:PMC4676309
119.Kaminska, K., et al., Prognostic and
Predictive Epigenetic Biomarkers in Oncology. Mol Diagn Ther, 2019. 23(1): p.
83-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-018-0371-7 PMid:30523565 PMCid:PMC6394434
120.Lamb, Y.N. and S. Dhillon, Epi
proColon((R)) 2.0 CE: A Blood-Based Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer. Mol
Diagn Ther, 2017. 21(2): p. 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-017-0259-y
PMid:28155091
121.Ahmed, D., et al., A tissue-based
comparative effectiveness analysis of biomarkers for early detection of
colorectal tumors. Clin Transl Gastroenterol, 2012. 3: p. e27.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ctg.2012.21
122.deVos, T., et al., Circulating
methylated SEPT9 DNA in plasma is a biomarker for colorectal cancer. Clin Chem,
2009. 55(7): p. 1337-46. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2008.115808
PMid:19406918
123.Lofton-Day, C., et al., DNA
methylation biomarkers for blood-based colorectal cancer screening. Clin Chem,
2008. 54(2): p. 414-23. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.095992
PMid:18089654
124.Wasserkort, R., et al., Aberrant
septin 9 DNA methylation in colorectal cancer is restricted to a single CpG
island. BMC Cancer, 2013. 13: p. 398. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-398
125.Wang, Y., P.M. Chen, and R.B. Liu,
Advance in plasma SEPT9 gene methylation assay for colorectal cancer early
detection. World J Gastrointest Oncol, 2018. 10(1): p. 15-22.
https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v10.i1.15 PMid:29375744 PMCid:PMC5767789
126.Church, T.R., et al., Prospective
evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic
colorectal cancer. Gut, 2014. 63(2): p. 317-25.https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304149
PMid:23408352 PMCid:PMC3913123
127.Johnson, D.A., et al., Plasma
Septin9 versus fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a
prospective multicenter study. PLoS One, 2014. 9(6): p. e98238. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098238
128.Graser, A., et al., Magnetic
resonance colonography for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in
asymptomatic adults. Gastroenterology, 2013. 144(4): p. 743-750 e2.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.12.041
129.Mandel, J.S., et al., Reducing
mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota
Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med, 1993. 328(19): p. 1365-71.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199305133281901 PMid:8474513
130.Sullivan, J.F. and J.A. Dumot,
Maximizing the Effectiveness of Colonoscopy in the Prevention of Colorectal
Cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am, 2018. 27(2): p. 367-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2017.11.009 PMid:29496095
131.Schoen, R.E., et al.,
Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible
sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med, 2012. 366(25): p. 2345-57.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1114635 PMid:22612596 PMCid:PMC3641846
132.Zauber, A.G., et al., Colonoscopic
polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med,
2012. 366(8): p. 687-96. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100370 PMid:22356322
PMCid:PMC3322371
133.Martin-Lopez, J.E., et al.,
Comparison of the accuracy of CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnosis
of colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis, 2014. 16(3): p. O82-9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12506
134.Knudsen, A.B., et al., Estimation of
Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling
Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 2016. 315(23): p.
2595-609. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.6828 PMid:27305518 PMCid:PMC5493310
135.Taylor, S.A., et al., Acceptance by
patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema
examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol,
2003. 181(4): p. 913-21. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810913
PMid:14500202
136.Senore, C., et al., Flexible
Sigmoidoscopy and CT Colonography Screening: Patients' Experience with and
Factors for Undergoing Screening-Insight from the Proteus Colon Trial.
Radiology, 2018. 286(3): p. 873-883. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170228
PMid:29040021
137.Akerkar, G.A., et al., Patient experience
and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual
colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc, 2001. 54(3): p.
310-5. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2001.117595 PMid:11522970
138.de Wijkerslooth, T.R., et al.,
Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening:
a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography. Am J Gastroenterol,
2012. 107(12): p. 1777-83. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.140 PMid:23211845
139.Pickhardt, P.J., Imaging and
Screening for Colorectal Cancer with CT Colonography. Radiol Clin North Am,
2017. 55(6): p. 1183-1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2017.06.009
PMid:28991559
140.Ferrucci, J.T., Colon cancer
screening with virtual colonoscopy: promise, polyps, politics. AJR Am J
Roentgenol, 2001. 177(5): p. 975-88. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.177.5.1770975
PMid:11641151
141.Pickhardt, P.J., et al.,
Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography
colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer, 2007.
109(11): p. 2213-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22668 PMid:17455218
142.Ran, T., et al., Cost-effectiveness
of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies-a Systematic Review. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.014
143.Vijan, S., et al., The
cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia. Am
J Gastroenterol, 2007. 102(2): p. 380-90.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00970.x PMid:17156139 PMCid:PMC1861841
144.Ladabaum, U., K. Song, and A.M.
Fendrick, Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at
what cost, and with what national impact? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2004.
2(7): p. 554-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1542-3565(04)00247-2