Cited by 195Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Cystic fibrosis colorectal cancer screening consensus recommendations

Open access
Hadjiliadis, Denis, Khoruts, Alexander, Zauber, Ann G., Hempstead, Sarah E., Maisonneuve, Patrick, Lowenfels, Albert B., Braid, Amy Leigh, Cullina, Joanne +19 more·2018·Gastroenterology

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Improved therapy has substantially increased survival of persons with cystic fibrosis (CF). But the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults with CF is 5–10 times greater compared to the general population, and 25–30 times greater in CF patients after an organ transplantation. To address this risk, the CF Foundation convened a multistakeholder task force to develop CRC screening recommendations. METHODS: The 18-member task force consisted of experts including pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, a social worker, nurse coordinator, surgeon, epidemiologist, statistician, CF adult, and a parent. The committee comprised 3 workgroups: Cancer Risk, Transplant, and Procedure and Preparation. A guidelines specialist at the CF Foundation conducted an evidence synthesis February–March 2016 based on PubMed literature searches. Task force members conducted additional independent searches. A total of 1159 articles were retrieved. After initial screening, the committee read 198 articles in full and analyzed 123 articles to develop recommendation statements. An independent decision analysis evaluating the benefits of screening relative to harms and resources required was conducted by the Department of Public Health at Erasmus Medical Center, Netherlands using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model from the Cancer Innervation and Surveillance Modeling Network. The task force included recommendation statements in the final guideline only if they reached an 80% acceptance threshold. RESULTS: The task force makes 10 CRC screening recommendations that emphasize shared, individualized decision-making and familiarity with CF-specific gastrointestinal challenges. We recommend colonoscopy as the preferred screening method, initiation of screening at age 40 years, 5-year re-screening and 3-year surveillance intervals (unless shorter interval is indicated by individual findings), and a CF-specific intensive bowel preparation. Organ transplant recipients with CF should initiate CRC screening at age 30 years within 2 years of the transplantation because of the additional risk for colon cancer associated with immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations aim to help CF adults, families, primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and CF and transplantation centers address the issue of CRC screening. They differ from guidelines developed for the general population with respect to the recommended age of screening initiation, screening method, preparation, and the interval for repeat screening and surveillance.

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 · 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.012

Cites

50 of 50 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?

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
Hadjiliadis, D., Khoruts, A., Zauber, A. G., Hempstead, S. E., Maisonneuve, P., Lowenfels, A. B., Braid, A. L., Cullina, J., Daggett, A., Fink, A., Gini, A., Hadjiliadis, D., Harron, P. F., Hempstead, S., Khoruts, A., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Lieberman, D., Liou, T., Lomas, P., Lowenfels, A., Maisonneuve, P., Marshall, B., Meyer, K., Rustgi, A., Shaukat, A., Zauber, A., & Sabadosa, K.
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
154
Issue
3
Pages
736-745.e14
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2778185093
Cited by
195
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Touro Scholar (Touro College) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL125520)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
cystic fibrosis, colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy, bowel preparation, organ transplant recipients, immunosuppression, cancer risk, screening frequency, shared decision-making, personalized screening, decision analysis
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Adult, Aged, Colonoscopy, Cystic Fibrosis, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Gastroenterology, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Organ Transplantation, Risk Assessment, Consensus, Early Detection of Cancer

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