There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
To assess the effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening tests for adults
at average risk.
Recent systematic reviews; Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd edition; and
focused searches of MEDLINE from 1966 through September 2001. The authors also conducted
hand searches, reviewed bibliographies, and consulted context experts to ensure completeness.
When available, the most recent high-quality systematic review was used to identify
relevant articles. This review was then supplemented with a MEDLINE search for more
recent articles.
One reviewer abstracted information from the final set of studies into evidence tables,
and a second reviewer checked the tables for accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved
by consensus.
For average-risk adults older than 50 years of age, evidence from multiple well-conducted
randomized trials supported the effectiveness of fecal occult blood testing in reducing
colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates compared with no screening. Data from
well-conducted case-control studies supported the effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and
possibly colonoscopy in reducing colon cancer incidence and mortality rates. A nonrandomized,
controlled trial examining colorectal cancer mortality rates and randomized trials
examining diagnostic yield supported the use of fecal occult blood testing plus sigmoidoscopy.
The effectiveness of barium enema is unclear. Data are insufficient to support a definitive
determination of the most effective screening strategy.
Colorectal cancer screening reduces death from colorectal cancer and can decrease
the incidence of disease through removal of adenomatous polyps. Several available
screening options seem to be effective, but the single best screening approach cannot
be determined because data are insufficient.
[1
]From University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Research Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina; Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania; and University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington.