Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with 44% of deaths occurring in individuals aged 75 years and older. With 78 million adults over 65 years projected by 2035, optimizing CRC screening and surveillance is crucial. This review examines guidelines, risks, and personalized approaches. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:CRC screening reduces incidence by 17-33% and mortality by 11-53%. Colonoscopy lowers mortality by 61% but has a 6.8% complication rate in those aged 75 years and older. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is 8.7 per 1,000 for polypectomy, and perforation occurs in 0.6 per 1,000. Frailty indices assess suitability, but surveillance guidelines lack clear discontinuation criteria. Screening should balance risk, complications, and health status. It may be cost-effective up to age 86 years in healthy individuals, but more research is needed to refine surveillance strategies and reduce overtreatment in older adults.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Colorectal cancer screening is widely recommended but underused. Blood-based screening offers the potential for higher adherence compared with endoscopy or stool-based testing but must first be clinically validated in a screening population. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the clinical performance of an investigational blood-based circulating tumor DNA test for colorectal cancer detection in an average-risk population using colonoscopy with histopathology as the reference method. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional observational study enrolling participants between May 2020 and April 2022 who were asymptomatic adults aged 45 to 85 years, at average risk of colorectal cancer, and willing to undergo a standard-of-care screening colonoscopy. Participants, staff, and pathologists were blinded to blood test results, and laboratory testing was performed blinded to colonoscopy findings. The study was conducted at 201 centers across 49 US states and the United Arab Emirates. Site-based and mobile phlebotomy were used for blood collection. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Participants were required to complete a screening colonoscopy after blood collection. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The primary end points were sensitivity for colorectal cancer, specificity for advanced colorectal neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions), negative predictive value for advanced colorectal neoplasia, and positive predictive value for advanced colorectal neoplasia. The secondary end point was sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The median age of participants in the evaluable cohort (n = 27 010) was 57.0 years, and 55.8% were women. Sensitivity for colorectal cancer was 79.2% (57/72; 95% CI, 68.4%-86.9%) and specificity for advanced colorectal neoplasia was 91.5% (22 306/24 371; 95% CI, 91.2%-91.9%). The negative predictive value for advanced colorectal neoplasia was 90.8% (22 306/24 567; 95% CI, 90.7%-90.9%) and the positive predictive value for advanced colorectal neoplasia was 15.5% (378/2443; 95% CI, 14.2%-16.8%). All primary end points met prespecified acceptance criteria. The sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 12.5% (321/2567; 95% CI, 11.3%-13.8%), which did not meet the prespecified acceptance criterion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In an average-risk colorectal cancer screening population, a blood-based test demonstrated acceptable accuracy for colorectal cancer detection, but detection of advanced precancerous lesions remains a challenge, and ongoing efforts are needed to improve test sensitivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04369053.

Description Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of morbidity and cancer-related mortality in the US. Despite multiple screening options, adherence to CRC screening in the US remains suboptimal and there are racial, ethnic and geographic disparities in CRC screening rates and outcomes. Advances in diagnostic technology have allowed for development and validation of blood tests for CRC screening. In this clinical practice update, our aims were to review the current evidence on blood tests, and the potential implications for CRC screening. We leveraged published modelling studies to understand the optimal test performance characteristics, interval, and uptake that would be needed for blood tests to achieve comparable effectiveness to that of currently available stool tests and screening colonoscopy.

With nearly 60 million Americans aged 65 and older, gastrointestinal (GI) conditions are a leading cause of healthcare utilization in this population. Despite this, older adults remain underrepresented in GI clinical trials and research, limiting evidence-based care. This review highlights three pivotal studies addressing this gap: (1) proton pump inhibitors, which are commonly used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease, are not associated with the later development of dementia; (2) undertreatment of chronic inflammation among older adults with inflammatory bowel disease is associated with a higher rate of adverse events compared to treatment with anti-TNF therapy, a biologic agent; (3) the majority (85%) of surveillance colonoscopies among older adults with a life expectancy of ≥ 10 years did not yield colorectal cancer, advanced dysplasia, or ≥ 3 polyps.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has potential to significantly impact clinical research when it comes to research preparation and data interpretation. Development of AI tools that can help in performing literature searches, synthesizing and streamlining data collection and analysis, and formatting of study could make the clinical research process more efficient. Several of these tools have been developed and trialed and many more are being rapidly developed. This article highlights the AI applications in clinical research in gastroenterology including its impact on drug discovery and explores areas where further guidance is needed to supplement the current understanding and enhance its use.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

The substantial carbon footprint imparted by medical services warrants increased attention to their environmental impact. National guideline organizations such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend multiple modalities for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with varying resource intensity. The aim of this study was to quantify the environmental burden for 2 of the most used CRC screening modalities, colonoscopy and the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test. A validated CRC microsimulation model was used to estimate the number of screening and follow-up tests for a cohort of 1 million average-risk individuals who underwent screening between ages 45 and 75. Component resources used for mt-sDNA, including waste products, energy, and transportation for colonoscopy and mt-sDNA, were collected from January 1, 2023, to January 1, 2024, and converted to carbon-equivalent emissions. Resources used for colonoscopy were captured from the literature. Resources devoted to screening colonoscopy were substantially (59%) higher than those to mt-sDNA, even when including follow-up colonoscopy. Of note, follow-up colonoscopy accounted for the majority (64%) of total emissions for the mt-sDNA screening strategy. Compared with colonoscopy screening, mt-sDNA substantially reduces the carbon emissions attributable to population-level CRC screening. Environmental impact should be included as a factor when choosing among guideline-recommended CRC screening strategies.

Rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the United States continue to fall short of guideline-recommended benchmarks. Challenges to increasing CRC screening include racial disparities, barriers at multiple levels of the health care system, and inadequate completion of 2-step screening. With new options for CRC screening and employment of programmatic strategies for screening by physicians, patients will have more opportunities to initiate and complete testing, which can ultimately improve CRC detection and prevention. This article highlights the current state of and optimal approach to CRC screening.