Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 348

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening

Sung, J J Y, Lau, J Y W, Young, G P, Sano, Y, Chiu, H M, Byeon, J S, Yeoh, K G, Goh, K L, Sollano, J, Rerknimitr, R, Matsuda, T, Wu, K C, Ng, S, Leung, S Y, Makharia, G, Chong, V H, Ho, K Y, Brooks, D, Lieberman, D A, Chan, F K L, for The Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer·2008·Gut

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is rapidly increasing in Asia, but screening guidelines are lacking. Through reviewing the literature and regional data, and using the modified Delphi process, the Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer and international experts launch consensus recommendations aiming to improve the awareness of healthcare providers of the changing epidemiology and screening tests available. The incidence, anatomical distribution and mortality of CRC among Asian populations are not different compared with Western countries. There is a trend of proximal migration of colonic polyps. Flat or depressed lesions are not uncommon. Screening for CRC should be started at the age of 50 years. Male gender, smoking, obesity and family history are risk factors for colorectal neoplasia. Faecal occult blood test (FOBT, guaiac-based and immunochemical tests), flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are recommended for CRC screening. Double-contrast barium enema and CT colonography are not preferred. In resource-limited countries, FOBT is the first choice for CRC screening. Polyps 5-9 mm in diameter should be removed endoscopically and, following a negative colonoscopy, a repeat examination should be performed in 10 years. Screening for CRC should be a national health priority in most Asian countries. Studies on barriers to CRC screening, education for the public and engagement of primary care physicians should be undertaken. There is no consensus on whether nurses should be trained to perform endoscopic procedures for screening of colorectal neoplasia.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/gut.2007.146316

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 348

Metadata

Authors
Sung, J. J. Y., Lau, J. Y. W., Young, G. P., Sano, Y., Chiu, H. M., Byeon, J. S., Yeoh, K. G., Goh, K. L., Sollano, J., Rerknimitr, R., Matsuda, T., Wu, K. C., Ng, S., Leung, S. Y., Makharia, G., Chong, V. H., Ho, K. Y., Brooks, D., Lieberman, D. A., Chan, F. K. L., & for The Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-07-15
Volume
57
Issue
8
Pages
1166-1176
ISSN
0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166811751
Cited by
348
References
0
FWCI
11.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2007.146316
The paper
Sung, J. J. Y., Lau, J. Y. W., Young, G. P., Sano, Y., Chiu, H. M., Byeon, J. S., Yeoh, K. G., Goh, K. L., Sollano, J., Rerknimitr, R., Matsuda, T., Wu, K. C., Ng, S., Leung, S. Y., Makharia, G., Chong, V. H., Ho, K. Y., Brooks, D., Lieberman, D. A., . . . for The Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer. (2008). Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2007.146316

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.