Screening for Colorectal Carcinoma in India: Real-World Scenario, Pitfalls, and Solutions

Abstract

Introduction

Noninvasive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has introduced innovative blood- and stool-based biomarkers, improving early detection and enabling personalized solutions. Global and Indian adoption of CRC screening remains a public health challenge. This study evaluates the real-world utility of screening colonoscopy, as recommended by global guidelines.

Methodology

A survey based on the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines was designed, setting 45+ years as the cutoff age for colonoscopy screening. A Google form was shared via social media application with health care professionals. Participation was voluntary, responses were collected over 30 days, and data were analyzed.

Results

A total of 2,199 individuals' data were analyzed. Among these, 1,374 were eligible for screening colonoscopy, out of which only 7.14% (98/1,374) actually underwent the procedure.

Conclusion

Among various cancer programs, screening sigmoidoscopy has proved to improve both CRC-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, its utilization is suboptimal, at best. Even among the highly educated medical community, the real-world utility was only in 7.14% of the eligible population. Barriers include invasive nature of intervention, need for appropriate bowel preparation, operator dependence, and small but significant risk of serious toxicity. An important method of increasing utility of screening colonoscopy is use of a test that can identify high-risk population, who can then be persuaded to undergo screening colonoscopy. This is the value of recently developed noninvasive blood- and stool-based tests, like Guardant Health's Shield. Being U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved with specificity of 90% and sensitivity of 84%, it should be offered to all eligible persons who can afford it, thereby increasing colonoscopy use and potentially saving lives.

Keywords

early detection - liquid biopsy - microbiome - cancer mortality - public health

Purvish M. Parikh

Introduction

The incidence of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is rapidly increasing in India and the world.[1] Age-standardized death rate of CRC in India is 2.9 per 100,000 cases, making us the country with the fifth highest mortality rate globally. Understandably, our 5-year survival of CRC patients also ranks among the lowest, being less than 40%.[2] Incidence is also increasing in the younger population.[3] [4] CRC is a disease, like most solid tumors, that has a well-recognized pathogenesis pathway toward the ultimate development of cancer. Since this usually takes several years, it is possible to detect CRC in early stages with a regular screening strategy. The well-established methodology recommended by guidelines globally is screening sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy—and can reduce CRC mortality by up to 73%. Awareness, acceptance, and implementation of CRC screening remain a significant public health challenge, globally as well as in India. The challenge is compounded by the fact that population screening for CRC is not part of the Indian national cancer programs. We therefore decided to do this study to determine the actual real-world utility of screening colonoscopy in India. Based on the same, we also discuss pitfalls and strategies to improve early detection of CRC in the community setting.

Methodology

The authors formed a group to discuss the importance of collecting such real-world data and agreed to the final questions for the survey. Based on the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines, the cutoff age for population colonoscopy screening was accepted as necessary for individuals aged ≥45 years. Accordingly, a Google Form was devised containing three multiple-choice questions ([Table 1]) and circulated among health care professionals using WhatsApp. Participation was voluntary. Replies were collected over 30 days and duplicates were deleted. The data collected were then tabulated and analyzed.

Table 1 Survey multiple-choice questions, each with three identical options to choose from for responders and their parents (N = 2,199)

		N = 2199
Q1	What is YOUR OWN experience with colonoscopic screening for early detection of colorectal cancer? ( N  = 733)
A	I am <45 y and do not need it as yet	654
B	I am ≥45 y but have not undergone screening colonoscopy	60
C	I am ≥45 y and have undergone screening colonoscopy at least once	19
Q2	What is YOUR MOTHER'S experience with colonoscopic screening for early detection of colorectal cancer? ( N  = 733)
A	She is <45 y and do not need it as yet	141
B	She is ≥45 y but have not undergone screening colonoscopy	563
C	She is ≥45 y and have undergone screening colonoscopy at least once	29
Q3	What is YOUR FATHER'S experience with colonoscopic screening for early detection of colorectal cancer? ( N  = 733)
A	He is <45 y and do not need it as yet	30
B	He is ≥45 y but have not undergone screening colonoscopy	653
C	He is ≥45 y and have undergone screening colonoscopy at least once	50

Results

Data collected were from a total of 2,199 unique individuals. This included 733 health care professionals and their parents. The results are shown in [Table 1] and [Fig. 1]. Overall, 7.13% (98/1,374) of eligible individuals had actually undergone screening colonoscopy in the real world in India.

Fig. 1 Screening colonoscopy use in the real world among educated Indians (N = 2,199).

Discussion

Globally, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths occurred in the year 2020.[5] [6] The incidence of CRC has been increasing in India, with some registries reporting a 20 to 124% increase per year.[1] Comparing the global rates of CRC with those of lung cancer (18.7%), liver cancer (7.8%), breast cancer (6.9%), and stomach cancer (6.8%), CRC has a higher death rate of 13.7 per 100,000.[1] According to the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), India ranks fifth in the world for CRC mortality with an age-standardized rate of 2.9 per 100,000 cases. Our 5-year survival of CRC patients also ranks among the lowest, being less than 40%.[2] Thus, trends in incidence and mortality for CRC in India document that it is a real public health care challenge—especially in the states/union territories of Mizoram, Jammu and Kashmir, and Kerala. The southern cities of Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Chennai, and Bengaluru had a high incidence of the disease. In the Northeast of India, the lifetime risk of developing CRC is the highest (probability of 1 in 167 for both males and females[7] [8]; [Table 2]; [Fig. 2]). Failure to screen and identify them early leads to the diagnosis at advanced stages of disease, contributing to the high mortality rate.

Table 2 Incidence of colon and rectal cancers in select regions of India

Registry location in India	Number of cases (per 100,000 population)
	Male	Female
North ( n  = 2; Delhi, Patiala)
Rectum	270	171
Colon	319	211
South ( n  = 4; Bengaluru, Chennai, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram)
Rectum	873	642
Colon	759	566
Northeast ( n  = 11; Cachar district, Dibrugarh district, Kamrup urban district, Manipur, Mizoram, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Tripura, Nagaland, Naharlagun, and Pasighat)
Rectum	479	339
Colon	454	313

Fig. 2 Colon and rectal cancer among the top three regions of India. NE, Northeast.

Like most solid tumors, the pathogenesis of CRCs is a relatively long process that commences by the development of colorectal polyps in the background of normal mucosa, which then may acquire precancerous features (e.g., dysplasia), further become carcinoma in situ, and finally a malignant tumor.[9] The risk is higher in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary syndromes associated with the development of CRC—like those with familial adenomatous polyposis, Lynch's syndrome. Mutations involving chromosomal instability (CIN) and microsatellite instability (MSI) are other pathways with higher lifetime risks.[10] [11] [12] [13] Interestingly, the incidence of CRC is increasing in younger adults. This is a global feature that has generated a lot of controversy and compelled guidelines to reduce the age for screening in the general population.[14] [15]

The current public health focus of the Ministry of Health, Government of India, is on noncommunicable diseases, including cancers. Details can be obtained from the official Web sites of the National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS); National Health Mission (NHM); and Ayushman Bharat—Ayushman Arogya Mandir. At present, the priority areas for cancer detection includes breast, cervical, and oral cancers. Screening for CRC is unfortunately not part of the national cancer programs.

The standard well-established method of CRC is screening sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy. The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines and available evidence support routine screening from ages 45 to 75 years, and individualized consideration of screening for ages between 76 and 85 years. USPSTF guidelines recommend several invasive (scopy), noninvasive imaging, indirect visualization, blood tests, and stool tests at varying intervals (from annual to every 10 years).[14] [15] Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of these techniques in the early identification of CRC.[15] [16] [17] The enhancement of patient outcomes is ascribed to the capability of detecting and excising precancerous polyps during the procedure. In the meta-analysis conducted by Bretthauer et al, it was established that sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening emerged as the sole screening modality for CRC that demonstrated an improvement in longevity and a decrease in all-cause mortality.[18]

However, this strategy is not without challenges. For instance, conventional colonoscopic screening misses approximately 26.3% of polyps.[19] The uptake of screening colonoscopy is suboptimal even in the western world. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) recommends that 80% of the population should be covered to make population screening effective.[20] However, only 59% of population coverage has been achieved so far according to published data.[21] This is true even in places where the procedure is available free of cost (e.g., Singapore).[22] In India, our survey shows that only 7.13% of 1,374 eligible persons actually underwent screening colonoscopy, even among the educated health care professionals and their parents.

Invasive procedure, need for prior preparation of the bowel, requirement for sedation, and the risk of missing out adenomas (up to 14%) are some of the factors that discourage individuals from undergoing the procedure. Also, there is a small risk of complications such as bleeding or bowel tears. The study by Tomaszewski et al evaluated the risk associated with British Columbia Colon Screening Program and concluded that the risk of a serious adverse event occurring 14 days after colonoscopy was 44 per 10,000 colonoscopies, including perforation (6 per 10,000), bleeding (26 per 10,000), and death (3 per 100,000).[23] Rabeneck et al also reported that colonoscopy is associated with high risk of colon perforation, especially when done in conjunction with polypectomy.[24] Marked discrepancies have also been observed in the impact of screening sigmoidoscopy between male and female populations.[15] Females have been identified as having proximal lesions without discernible aberrations in the distal colon, which complicates the screening process via sigmoidoscopy, whereas males exhibit distal lesions that facilitate detection and subsequent referral for colonoscopy to ascertain the extent of the disease. Lack of awareness and limited knowledge were the primary barriers to colonoscopy screening, with fear and embarrassment being higher among women.[25] Use of artificial intelligence to assist in adenoma detection has proven to be beneficial in almost all studies performed to date.[26] [27] However, false negatives and false positives still abound. This can add to the emotional burden, increase anxiety, and result in additional tests with their respective toxicities (medical, financial) and occupy precious resources in chasing a bogey. In short, awareness, acceptance, and implementation of CRC screening remain a significant public health challenge, globally as well as in India. In a review by Akanbi et al, researchers concluded that in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), knowledge about CRC and its screening methods is limited, particularly in rural areas and among lower socioeconomic groups.[28] Jones et al, in a study conducted in South India, stated that provider recommendations can help address the low screening rates. If successful, it will reduce the mortality and economic burdens of CRC detected at an advanced stage.[29] Efforts to improve awareness have included community-based programs aimed at educating the public about the benefits of early screening and the availability of various screening methods, such as colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs).[30] [31] While current guidelines advocate for CRC screening to commence at the age of 45 years, recent trends indicate a rising incidence of CRC among younger adults aged 20 to 49 years might lead to the commencement of screening at a younger age.[32] [33]

A test is good only if it is used in the way that it is intended to be used. A gold standard, when used in only a small percentage of the population, defeats its public health purpose. Screening colonoscopy, as it is available and recommended today, is clearly not the right option for population, especially in India and other LMICs.

Enhancing the Uptake of Screening Colonoscopy/Sigmoidoscopy

Direct visualization techniques (DVTs; sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) were crying for help. Alternate visualization as well as imaging tools stepped in first (analog, digital, or artificial intelligence [AI] assisted digital).[34] Advanced colonoscopy techniques present a promising avenue for enhancing the detection and removal of polyps. Such techniques include high-definition imaging, chromoendoscopy (use of contrast dyes to detect mucosal abnormalities), narrowband imaging (NBI; which uses optical filters to narrow the red light, thereby decreasing the penetration depth and results in a green-blue image that accentuates the mucosal vasculature and surface pattern morphology), and other newer devices like the G-EYE endoscope and full-spectrum endoscopy. These have shown to maximize adenoma detection and increase the scope for CRC detection.[11]

The next progress was the development of two other broad groups: stool-based and blood-based tests.[35] Stool-based test include FIT, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), and multitargeted stool DNA test (MT-sDNA).[35] Blood-based tests consist of cell-free DNA analysis, methylated SEPT-9, and Guardant Health's Shield.[35] [36] [37] [Table 3] shows various screening methods available for CRC and their sensitivity, specificity, adherence, and additional remarks. Guardant Health's Shield utilizes genetic, epigenetic, and proteomics in circulating tumor DNA and was recently approved by the U.S. FDA (sensitivity of 91% in CRC, 20% in advanced adenoma, and specificity of 92%).[38] This publication was extensively discussed in the Oncology beyond the Obvious webinar series on September 10, 2024.[39] [Fig. 3] enumerates the various blood- and stool-based tests currently available.

Table 3 Screening methods for colorectal cancer (CRC)

Screening method	Sensitivity	Specificity	Adherence	Remarks
Gold standard
Colonoscopy	89%	18–100%	22–38%	Higher cost compared with stool screening and other direct visualization tests
Supplementary/additional/alternates
Guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT)	50–75%	96–98%	40–67%	High specificity lower cost compared with colonoscopy
Fecal immunochemical test (FIT)	74%	94%	31–73%	Lower cost compared with CT colonography, colonoscopy, capsule endoscopy
Multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test	93%	85%	75%	Higher cost compared with FIT
Computed tomography (CT) colonography	89%	94%	30–34%	Lower cost compared with colonoscopy
Flexible sigmoidoscopy	83–94%	90–100%	27%	Lower cost compared with colonoscopy
Guardant Health's Shield blood test	84%	90%	NA	Prospective study; identifies high-risk individuals who could be persuaded to undergo screening colonoscopy
Freenome blood test	79.2%	NA	NA	PREEMPT multiomics; 48,995 screen-eligible adults aged 45–85 y
Colon AiQ blood test	86%	92%	NA	Retrospective case controlled; 5 gene methylation status (SEPT9 gene, BCAT1, IKZF1, BCAN, VAV3)

Fig. 3 Enhancing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: blood-based and stool-based tests.

Noninvasive tests like FOBT, gFOBT, FIT, and sDNA can be used as initial screening modalities, especially in people who are deferring invasive procedures like colonoscopy. The advantages of these are that the tests require no bowel preparation, dietary restrictions, or medication adjustments. Samples can be collected at home, making it more convenient and increasing adherence, posing no risk of damage to the colon.[40] Coronado et al conducted an RCT demonstrating a 17.5% increase in CRC screening with blood-based testing compared with usual care. Liang et al found that offering a blood test as a secondary option increased screening by 7.5% among those who previously declined colonoscopy or FIT.[41] However, a positive result still requires colonoscopy for confirmation.[42] Delays in colonoscopy for positive FIT can lead to worse CRC outcomes, as demonstrated by Forbes et al. Therefore, a colonoscopy should be performed as soon as possible following a positive alternate screening test.[43] [44]

Conclusion

Colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy remains the gold standard for CRC screening in the average-risk general population. However, its actual use is woefully inadequate in the real world globally. This is also true for LMICs like India. As a result, we have excessive deaths due to CRC in our people. Several factors contribute to this reality, including but not limited to colonoscopy being an invasive procedure, requiring diligent preparation, and being operator dependent. Expanding screening options to include noninvasive tests like stool-based and blood-based assays have the potential to improve rates of CRC screening and save lives. Tests like Guardant Health's Shield that identify high-risk individuals among the average-risk general population will persuade fence sitters to undergo the gold standard, namely, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, and should be proactively used for people who can afford them ([Table 4]).

Table 4 Take-home messages

Sl. no.	Take-home messages
1	Among various anticancer programs, screening sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy has proved to improve both CRC-specific mortality and all-cause mortality
2	Unfortunately, its utilization is suboptimal; even among the highly educated medical community, only 7.14% of the eligible population actually undergo screening colonoscopy
3	Barriers include the invasive nature of intervention, need for appropriate bowel preparation, operator dependence, and small but significant risk of serious toxicity
4	A test that can identify the high-risk subset has the potential to persuade fence sitters to undergo screening colonoscopy
5	An example of noninvasive blood includes Guardant Health's Shield, which is U.S. FDA approved, providing specificity of 90% and sensitivity of 84%
6	Such tests should be offered to all eligible persons who can afford them, thereby increasing colonoscopy use and potentially saving lives
7	This is supported by the real-world evidence from United States that shows high adherence to taking this test

Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; FDA, Food and Drug Administration.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Note

An important disclaimer is that our work and this manuscript are NOT for individuals at risk of hereditary CRC/hereditary syndromes, where the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommendations for genetic screening can be followed.

• References

• 1 Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol 2019; 14 (02) 89-103
• 2 Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H. et al; CONCORD Working Group. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 2015; 385 (9972): 977-1010
• 3 Akimoto N, Ugai T, Zhong R. et al. Rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer: a call to action. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2021; 18 (04) 230-243
• 4 Dharwadkar P, Zaki TA, Murphy CC. Colorectal cancer in younger adults. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2022; 36 (03) 449-470
• 5 Deo SVS, Sharma J, Kumar S. GLOBOCAN 2020 report on global cancer burden: challenges and opportunities for surgical oncologists. Ann Surg Oncol 2022; 29 (11) 6497-6500
• 6 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249
• 7 Asthana S, Khenchi R, Labani S. Incidence of colorectal cancers in India: a review from population-based cancer registries. Curr Med Res Pract 2021; 11 (02) 91
• 8 Qurieshi MA, Khan SM, Masoodi MA. et al. Epidemiology of cancers in Kashmir, India: an analysis of hospital data. Adv Prev Med 2016; 2016: 1896761
• 9 Gupta S. Screening for colorectal cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2022; 36 (03) 393-414
• 10 Sandouk F, Al Jerf F, Al-Halabi MH. Precancerous lesions in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013; 2013: 457901
• 11 Kumar AS, Lee JK. Colonoscopy: advanced and emerging techniques. A review of colonoscopic approaches to colorectal conditions. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2017; 30 (02) 136-144
• 12 Weisenberger DJ, Siegmund KD, Campan M. et al. CpG island methylator phenotype underlies sporadic microsatellite instability and is tightly associated with BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet 2006; 38 (07) 787-793
• 13 Menon G, Carr S, Kasi A. Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2024
• 14 de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA. et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (06) 503-513
• 15 Juul FE, Cross AJ, Schoen RE. et al. Effectiveness of colonoscopy screening vs sigmoidoscopy screening in colorectal cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7 (02) e240007
• 16 Miller EA, Pinsky PF, Schoen RE, Prorok PC, Church TR. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: long-term follow-up of the randomised US PLCO cancer screening trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 4 (02) 101-110
• 17 Bretthauer M, Løberg M, Wieszczy P. et al; NordICC Study Group. Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death. N Engl J Med 2022; 387 (17) 1547-1556
• 18 Bretthauer M, Wieszczy P, Løberg M. et al. Estimated lifetime gained with cancer screening tests: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2023; 183 (11) 1196-1203
• 19 Jiang W, Xin L, Zhu S. et al. Risk factors related to polyp miss rate of short-term repeated colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2023; 68 (05) 2040-2049
• 20 NCCRT. 80% in Every Community. American Cancer Society. National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Accessed December 31, 2024 at: https://nccrt.org/our-impact/80-in-every-community/
• 21 Mehta SJ, Polsky D, Zhu J. et al. ACA-mandated elimination of cost sharing for preventive screening has had limited early impact. Am J Manag Care 2015; 21 (07) 511-517
• 22 Chan PW, Ngu JH, Poh Z, Soetikno R. Colorectal cancer screening. Singapore Med J 2017; 58 (01) 24-28
• 23 Tomaszewski M, Sanders D, Enns R. et al. Risks associated with colonoscopy in a population-based colon screening program: an observational cohort study. CMAJ Open 2021; 9 (04) E940-E947
• 24 Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ. et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135 (06) 1899-1906 , 1906.e1
• 25 Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, Breen N, Seeff LC, Brown ML. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Med Care 2005; 43 (09) 939-944
• 26 Xu H, Tang RSY, Lam TYT. et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21 (02) 337-346.e3
• 27 Gangwani MK, Haghbin H, Ishtiaq R. et al. Single versus second observer vs artificial intelligence to increase the adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy: a network analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2024; 69 (04) 1380-1388
• 28 Akanbi M, Santiago Rivera OJ, Dutta A, Pratiti R. A review of community awareness for colorectal cancer screening and prevention in North and Central Asian countries. Cureus 2023; 15 (06) e40540
• 29 Jones M, Subramanian S, Jose R. Cancer screening behaviors and preferences among women in southern India. J Cancer Policy 2023; 35: 100401
• 30 Dhaliwal A, Vlachostergios PJ, Oikonomou KG, Moshenyat Y. Fecal DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening: molecular targets and perspectives. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2015; 7 (10) 178-183
• 31 Gadd N, Lee S, Sharman MJ, Obamiro K. Educational interventions to improve bowel cancer awareness and screening in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: a scoping review. Prev Med Rep 2024; 39: 102653
• 32 CDC. Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Colorectal Cancer. 2024. Accessed December 31, 2024 at: https://www.cdc.gov/colorectal-cancer/screening/index.html
• 33 Aggarwal S, Lavingiya V, Krishna V, Chitalkar P, Ostwal V, Parikh PM. Young onset colorectal cancer. South Asian J Cancer Published online December 11, 2024;
• 34 Jain S, Maque J, Galoosian A, Osuna-Garcia A, May FP. Optimal strategies for colorectal cancer screening. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2022; 23 (04) 474-493
• 35 Mannucci A, Goel A. Stool and blood biomarkers for colorectal cancer management: an update on screening and disease monitoring. Mol Cancer 2024; 23 (01) 259
• 36 Chang A, Prabhala S, Daneshkhah A. et al. Early screening of colorectal cancer using feature engineering with artificial intelligence-enhanced analysis of nanoscale chromatin modifications. Sci Rep 2024; 14 (01) 7808
• 37 Chung DC, Gray II DM, Singh H. et al. A cell-free DNA blood-based test for colorectal cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2024; 390 (11) 973-983
• 38 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Shield – P230009. Accessed November 24, 2024 at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/shield-p230009
• 39 Kavina Creations. YouTube. Accessed December 21, 2024 at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrkAIpL9TKW2YB1u_cveFRw
• 40 Kumar R, Lewis CR. Colon Cancer Screening. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2024
• 41 Liang PS, Zaman A, Kaminsky A. et al. Blood test increases colorectal cancer screening in persons who declined colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21 (11) 2951-2957.e2
• 42 Coronado GD, Jenkins CL, Shuster E. et al. Blood-based colorectal cancer screening in an integrated health system: a randomised trial of patient adherence. Gut 2024; 73 (04) 622-628
• 43 Zhang M, Zhang Y, Zhang W. et al. Postponing colonoscopy for 6 months in high-risk population increases colorectal cancer detection in China. Cancer Med 2023; 12 (10) 11816-11827
• 44 Forbes N, Hilsden RJ, Martel M. et al. Association between time to colonoscopy after positive fecal testing and colorectal cancer outcomes: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19 (07) 1344-1354.e8

Publication History

Article published online:
12 February 2025