Cited by 1,944Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

Open access
Wolf, Andrew M.D., Fontham, Elizabeth T.H., Church, Timothy R., Flowers, Christopher R., Guerra, Carmen E., LaMonte, Samuel J., Etzioni, Ruth, McKenna, Matthew T. +11 more·2018·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model‐recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high‐sensitivity stool‐based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation . The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation . The ACS recommends ( qualified recommendations ) that: 1) average‐risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high‐sensitivity, guaiac‐based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250–281 . © 2018 American Cancer Society .

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 · 10.3322/caac.21457

Cites

190 of 190 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?

  • Screening is necessary to detect precancerous changes and early forms of cancer and to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

    “There is some debate, in which, on the one hand, there is no doubt about the logical concept that screening is necessary to detect precancerous changes and early forms of cancer and to reduce mortality from CRC[22-25].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [1]1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer sta- tistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7- 30.
  2. [23]23. Eddy D. Guidelines for the cancer related checkup: recommendations and rationale. CA Cancer J Clin. 1980;30:194-240.
  3. [26]26. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screen- ing for colorectal cancer: updated evi- dence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315:2576-2594.
  4. [43]43. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Pre- ventive Services Task Force recommenda- tion statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149: 627-637.
  5. [44]44. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recom- mendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315: 2564-7255.
  6. [159]159. Jabrill A. Medtronic Gains Expanded Indi- cation for PillCam Colon 2 Capsule. FDA- News Device Daily Bulletin. Falls Church, VA: FDANews; 2016.
  7. [183]183. Gupta S, Halm EA, Rockey DC, et al. Com- parative effectiveness of fecal immuno- chemical test outreach, colonoscopy outreach, and usual care for boosting colo- rectal cancer screening among the under- served: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1725-1732.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolf, A. M. D., Fontham, E. T. H., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., Guerra, C. E., LaMonte, S. J., Etzioni, R., McKenna, M. T., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y. T., Walter, L. C., Andrews, K. S., Brawley, O. W., Brooks, D., Fedewa, S. A., Manassaram‐Baptiste, D., Siegel, R. L., Wender, R. C., & Smith, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Professor and Director of the Duke Center for Onco‐Primary Care, Durham, NC
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
  • American Cancer Society (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Robert A.
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-30
Volume
68
Issue
4
Pages
250-281
ISSN
  • 0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-4863
OpenAlex
W2805885226
Cited by
1,944
References
190
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 205 · 2024: 259 · 2023: 276 · 2022: 273 · 2021: 313 · 2020: 281 · 2019: 198 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
78.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Emory University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, average-risk population, fecal immunochemical test, multi-target stool DNA test, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality, precancerous lesions, adenomatous polyps, microsimulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, American Cancer Society, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Risk, United States, Colorectal Neoplasms, 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