Cited by 2,143Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGenetic factors in colorectal cancerColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale?Update based on new evidence

WINAWER, S·2003·Gastroenterology

Abstract

We have updated guidelines for screening for colorectal cancer. The original guidelines were prepared by a panel convened by the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and published in 1997 under the sponsorship of a consortium of gastroenterology societies. Since then, much has changed, both in the research rature and in the clinical context. The present report summarizes new developments in this field and suggests how they should change practice. As with the previous version, these guidelines offer screening options and encourage the physician and patient to decide together which is the best approach for them. The guidelines also take into account not only the effectiveness of screening but also the risks, inconvenience, and cost of the various approaches. These guidelines differ from those published in 1997 in several ways: we recommend against rehydrating fecal occult blood tests; the screening interval for double contrast barium enema has been shortened to 5 years; colonoscopy is the preferred test for the diagnostic investigation of patients with findings on screening and for screening patients with a family history of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; recommendations for people with a family history of colorectal cancer make greater use of risk stratification; and guidelines for genetic testing are included. Guidelines for surveillance are also included. Follow-up of postpolypectomy patients relies now on colonoscopy, and the first follow-up examination has been lengthened from 3 to 5 years for low-risk patients. If this were adopted nationally, surveillance resources could be shifted to screening and diagnosis. Promising new screening tests (virtual colonoscopy and tests for altered DNA in stool) are in development but are not yet ready for use outside of research studies. Despite a consensus among expert groups on the effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer, screening rates remain low. Improvement depends on changes in patients' attitudes, physicians' behaviors, insurance coverage, and the surveillance and reminder systems necessary to support screening programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/gast.2003.50044

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WINAWER, S.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
WINAWER, S
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-02
Volume
124
Issue
2
Pages
544-560
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097786984
Cited by
2,143
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 95 · 2014: 91 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 101
FWCI
80.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, colorectal cancer surveillance, fecal occult blood test, double-contrast barium enema, colonoscopy, Lynch syndrome, risk stratification, genetic testing, post-polypectomy surveillance, CT colonography, screening frequency, screening rates, shared decision-making
MeSH terms
Humans, Mass Screening, Population Surveillance, Risk Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Risk Assessment

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