Patient Population Under Consideration
This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults 50 years and older
who are at average risk of colorectal cancer and who do not have a
family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high
lifetime risk of colorectal cancer (such as Lynch syndrome or familial
adenomatous polyposis), a personal history of inflammatory bowel
disease, a previous adenomatous polyp, or previous colorectal cancer.
When screening results in the diagnosis of colorectal adenomas or
cancer, patients are followed up with a surveillance regimen, and
recommendations for screening no longer apply. The USPSTF did not review
or consider the evidence on the effectiveness of any particular
surveillance regimen after diagnosis and removal of adenomatous polyps
or colorectal cancer.
Assessment of Risk
For the vast majority of adults, the most important risk factor for
colorectal cancer is older age. Most cases of colorectal cancer occur
among adults older than 50 years; the median age at diagnosis is 68
years.3
A positive family history (excluding known inherited familial
syndromes) is thought to be linked to about 20% of cases of colorectal
cancer.1 About 3% to 10% of the population has a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer.7
The USPSTF did not specifically review the evidence on screening in
populations at increased risk; however, other professional organizations
recommend that patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (a
first-degree relative with early-onset colorectal cancer or multiple
first-degree relatives with the disease) be screened more frequently
starting at a younger age, and with colonoscopy.8
Male sex and black race are also associated with higher colorectal
cancer incidence and mortality. Black adults have the highest incidence
and mortality rates compared with other racial/ethnic subgroups.3
The reasons for these disparities are not entirely clear. Studies have
documented inequalities in screening, diagnostic follow-up, and
treatment; they also suggest that equal treatment generally seems to
produce equal outcomes.9-11
Accordingly, this recommendation applies to all racial/ethnic groups,
with the clear acknowledgement that efforts are needed to ensure that
at-risk populations receive recommended screening, follow-up, and
treatment.
Screening Tests
The Table lists
the various screening tests for colorectal cancer and notes potential
frequency of use as well as additional considerations for each method.
The Figure presents
the estimated number of life-years gained, colorectal cancer deaths
averted, lifetime colonoscopies required, and resulting complications
per 1,000 screened adults aged 50 to 75 years for each of the screening
strategies. These estimates are derived from modeling conducted by the
Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to inform
this recommendation.2, 12
Stool-Based Tests
Multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown that screening
with the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces colorectal
cancer deaths.1
Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which identify intact human
hemoglobin in stool, have improved sensitivity compared with gFOBT for
detecting colorectal cancer.1
Among the FITs that are cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and available for use in the United States, the OC FIT-CHEK family
of FITs (Polymedco)—which include the OC-Light and the OC-Auto—have the
best test performance characteristics (ie, highest sensitivity and
specificity).1
Multitargeted stool DNA testing (FIT-DNA) is an emerging screening
strategy that combines a FIT with testing for altered DNA biomarkers in
cells shed into the stool. Multitargeted stool DNA testing has increased
single-test sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer compared with
FIT alone.13
The harms of stool-based testing primarily result from adverse events
associated with follow-up colonoscopy of positive findings.1 The specificity of FIT-DNA is lower than that of FIT alone,13
which means it has a higher number of false-positive results and higher
likelihood of follow-up colonoscopy and experiencing an associated
adverse event per screening test. There are no empirical data on the
appropriate longitudinal follow-up for an abnormal FIT-DNA test result
followed by a negative colonoscopy; there is potential for overly
intensive surveillance due to clinician and patient concerns about the
implications of the genetic component of the test.
Direct Visualization Tests
Several RCTs have shown that flexible sigmoidoscopy alone reduces deaths from colorectal cancer.1
Flexible sigmoidoscopy combined with FIT has been studied in a single
trial and was found to reduce the colorectal cancer–specific mortality
rate more than flexible sigmoidoscopy alone.14
Modeling studies conducted by CISNET also consistently estimate that
combined testing yields more life-years gained and colorectal cancer
deaths averted compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy alone.2
Flexible sigmoidoscopy can result in direct harms, such as colonic
perforations and bleeding, although the associated event rates are much
lower than those observed with colonoscopy.1 Harms can also occur as a result of follow-up colonoscopy.
Completed trials of flexible sigmoidoscopy provide indirect evidence
that colonoscopy—a similar endoscopic screening method—reduces
colorectal cancer mortality. A prospective cohort study also found an
association between patients who self-reported being screened with
colonoscopy and a lower colorectal cancer mortality rate.15
Colonoscopy has both indirect and direct harms. Harms may be caused by
bowel preparation prior to the procedure (eg, dehydration and
electrolyte imbalances), the sedation used during the procedure (eg,
cardiovascular events), or the procedure itself (eg, infection, colonic
perforations, or bleeding).
Evidence for assessing the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT)
colonography is limited to studies of its test characteristics.1
Computed tomography colonography can result in unnecessary diagnostic
testing or treatment of incidental extracolonic findings that are of no
importance or would never have threatened the patient’s health or become
apparent without screening (ie, overdiagnosis and overtreatment).1
Extracolonic findings are common, occurring in about 40% to 70% of
screening examinations. Between 5% and 37% of these findings result in
diagnostic follow-up, and about 3% require definitive treatment.1
As with other screening strategies, indirect harms from CT colonography
can also occur from follow-up colonoscopy for positive findings.
Serology Tests
The FDA approved a blood test to detect circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA (Epi proColon; Epigenomics) in April 2016.16
A single test characteristic study met the inclusion criteria for the
systematic evidence review supporting this recommendation statement; it
found the SEPT9 DNA test to have low sensitivity (48%) for detecting colorectal cancer.17
Starting and Stopping Ages
Available RCTs of gFOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy included patients
with age ranges of 45 to 80 years and 50 to 74 years, respectively. For
gFOBT, the majority of participants entered the trials at age 50 or 60
years; for flexible sigmoidoscopy, the mean age of participants was 56
to 60 years.1
Microsimulation analyses performed by CISNET suggest that starting
colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years rather than 50 years is
estimated to yield a modest increase in life-years gained and a more
efficient balance between life-years gained and lifetime number of
colonoscopies (a proxy measure for the burden of screening).2
However, across the different screening methods, lowering the age at
which to begin screening to 45 years while maintaining the same
screening interval resulted in an estimated increase in the lifetime
number of colonoscopies. In the case of screening colonoscopy, 2 of the 3
models found that by starting screening at age 45 years, the screening
interval could be extended from 10 to 15 years. Doing so maintained the
same (or slightly more) life-years gained as performing colonoscopy
every 10 years starting at age 50 years without increasing the lifetime
number of colonoscopies. However, 1 model estimated a slight loss in
life-years gained with a longer screening interval and an earlier age at
which to begin screening.2
The USPSTF considered these findings and concluded that the evidence
best supports a starting age of 50 years for the general population,
noting the modest increase in life-years gained by starting screening
earlier, the discordant findings across models for extending the
screening interval when the age at which to begin screening is lowered,
and the lack of empirical evidence in younger populations.
The age at which the balance of benefits and harms of colorectal
cancer screening becomes less favorable varies based on a patient’s life
expectancy, health status, comorbid conditions, and prior screening
status.18
Empirical data from randomized trials on outcomes of screening after
age 74 years are scarce. All 3 CISNET models consistently estimate that
few additional life-years are gained when screening is extended past age
75 years among average-risk adults who have previously received
adequate screening.2
The USPSTF does not recommend routine screening for colorectal cancer
in adults 86 years and older. In this age group, competing causes of
mortality preclude a mortality benefit that would outweigh the harms.
Screening Intervals
Evidence from RCTs demonstrates that annual or biennial screening
with gFOBT as well as 1-time and every 3- to 5-year flexible
sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal cancer deaths.1
The CISNET models found that several screening strategies were
estimated to yield comparable life-years gained (ie, life-years gained
with the noncolonoscopy strategies were within 90% of those gained with
the colonoscopy strategy) among adults aged 50 to 75 years and an
efficient balance of benefits and harms (see the full CISNET report for
more details2, 12).
These screening strategies include 1) annual screening with FIT, 2)
screening every 10 years with flexible sigmoidoscopy and annual
screening with FIT, 3) screening every 10 years with colonoscopy, and 4)
screening every 5 years with CT colonography. The findings for CT
colonography depend on the proxy measure used for the burden of
screening (number of lifetime colonoscopies or lifetime cathartic bowel
preparations). Two of the 3 CISNET models found that FIT-DNA screening
every 3 years (as recommended by the manufacturer) was estimated to
yield life-years gained less than 90% of the colonoscopy screening
strategy (84% and 87%, respectively). Another way to conceptualize these
findings is to note that CISNET modeling found that FIT-DNA screening
every 3 years was estimated to provide about the same amount of benefit
as screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy alone every 5 years (Figure).2
Treatment
Treatment of early-stage colorectal cancer generally consists of
local excision or simple polypectomy for tumors limited to the colonic
mucosa or surgical resection (via laparoscopy or open approach) with
anastomosis for larger, localized lesions.
Other Approaches to Prevention
The USPSTF has made a recommendation on aspirin use for the primary
prevention of cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer in
average-risk adults (www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org).