CRC screening recommendations for average-risk and high-risk persons from US GI societies

Clinical Question

What are the recommendations regarding colorectal cancer screening from the three major US gastroenterology societies?

Bottom line

This guideline, developed using a consensus approach, is generally consistent with the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. This guideline adds specific screening strategies for high-risk patients (albeit "weak recommendations based on very-low-quality evidence") and recommends that we do more to monitor the quality of our screening practices, which is a sensible recommendation. Notably, 4 of the 9 authors had financial conflicts of interest with industry. Funding for the guideline development process is not stated. 5

Study design: Practice guideline

Funding: Unknown/not stated

Setting: Various (guideline)

Reviewer

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS
Professor
University of Georgia
Athens, GA


Discuss this POEM


Comments

Anonymous

good poem

Anonymous

It could be mentioned that these recommendations are almost identical to the Canadian association of gastroenterology guidelines published in 2004

Anonymous

What I glean from this is to NOT use US guidelines, so it reinforces my opinion. We should always ensure to let the public know that US guidelines are based on a sometimes biased, but always for-profit system, hence why Canadian guidelines are occasionally different.

Anonymous

As retired neurosurgeon I have been asked recently by one of my patient about familial GI malignancy , now I know I have advised correctly I referred fo gastroenterologist
for further investigation

Anonymous

FIT outcomes showed 20% false positives in BC last year. The risk of harms made this unworkable no matter how much it promised us

Anonymous

Appreciated the note re: financial conflict of interest and Undiclosed funding source. Good poem

Anonymous

unclear recommendations

Anonymous

"Weak recommendations with very low quality evidence" does not make me confident to recommend a costly procedure with risks and significant preparation discomfort.

Anonymous

Many of my patients are past the ages mentioned in here, but have had cancer or have already started down the path of screening and the action planning after it.
This guideline doesn't add much to other guidelines nor does it conflict, so it just gives a bit more clarity on how the GP and specialists should be proceeding.
Guidelines are nice, but it is funny how these ones seemed to be a bit "loosely" designed.

Anonymous

Thanks for mentioning the potential confounding factors in this consensus - conflicts of interest, unclear funding and questionable quality of the evidence based review. However the recommendations do closely match my current practice.

Anonymous

Excellent