Cited by 516Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies

Open access
Shaukat, Aasma, Levin, Theodore R.·2022·Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology

Abstract

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide and screening is useful for early diagnosis. This Review outlines currently available CRC screening options worldwide (including colonoscopy and stool-based tests). Key features of each modality and new screening tests under development are described. Throughout the world, the most used approach for colorectal cancer screening is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy is the most common screening modality in the USA and is also used in many other regions, including, for example, parts of Germany and Poland. Offering non-invasive tests as a screening option effectively improves adherence to screening. There are five blood tests currently being studied as a potential alternative to FIT and colonoscopy for CRC screening. Novel imaging tests, such as the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also undergoing active investigation. Recovery from deferred screening due to the COVID-19 pandemic will require the use of non-invasive screening options to help select patients for colonoscopy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41575-022-00612-y

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of colorectal cancer screening and local recommendations vary in different regions of the world and depend on the incidence of the disease, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure involved in screening.

    “The use of CRC screening and local recommendations vary in different regions of the world and depend on the incidence of the disease, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure involved in screening[27,28].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaukat, A., & Levin, T. R.
Affiliations
  • VA NY Harbor Healthcare System (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Levin, Theodore R.
Venue
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Published
2022-05-03
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
521-531
ISSN
  • 1759-5045 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5053
OpenAlex
W4225312520
Cited by
516
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 158 · 2024: 153 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 13
FWCI
12.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, fecal immunochemical test, blood-based screening test, colon capsule endoscopy, MR colonography, CT colonography, colonoscopy, screening guidelines, COVID-19 pandemic, stool-based tests
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Colonoscopy, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Occult Blood, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review