Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men and women to multiple recommended screening tests.

The American Cancer Society 2035 challenge goal on cancer mortality reduction.

A summary evaluation of the 2015 American Cancer Society (ACS) challenge goal showed that overall US mortality from all cancers combined declined 26% over the period from 1990 to 2015. Recent research suggests that US cancer mortality can still be lowered considerably by applying known interventions broadly and equitably. The ACS Board of Directors, therefore, commissioned ACS researchers to determine challenge goals for reductions in cancer mortality by 2035. A statistical model was used to estimate the average annual percent decline in overall cancer death rates among the US general population and among college-educated Americans during the most recent period. Then, the average annual percent decline in the overall cancer death rates of college graduates was applied to the death rates in the general population to project future rates in the United States beginning in 2020. If overall cancer death rates from 2020 through 2035 nationally decline at the pace of those of college graduates, then death rates in 2035 in the United States will drop by 38.3% from the 2015 level and by 54.4% from the 1990 level. On the basis of these results, the ACS 2035 challenge goal was set as a 40% reduction from the 2015 level. Achieving this goal could lead to approximately 1.3 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred from 2020 through 2035 and 122,500 fewer cancer deaths in 2035 alone. The results also show that reducing the prevalence of risk factors and achieving optimal adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines by 2025 could lead to a 33.5% reduction in the overall cancer death rate by 2035, attaining 85% of the challenge goal.

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening's contribution to cancer control.

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.

International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.

Screening mammography aims to identify breast cancer at earlier stages of the disease, when treatment can be more successful1. Despite the existence of screening programmes worldwide, the interpretation of mammograms is affected by high rates of false positives and false negatives2. Here we present an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is capable of surpassing human experts in breast cancer prediction. To assess its performance in the clinical setting, we curated a large representative dataset from the UK and a large enriched dataset from the USA. We show an absolute reduction of 5.7% and 1.2% (USA and UK) in false positives and 9.4% and 2.7% in false negatives. We provide evidence of the ability of the system to generalize from the UK to the USA. In an independent study of six radiologists, the AI system outperformed all of the human readers: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for the AI system was greater than the AUC-ROC for the average radiologist by an absolute margin of 11.5%. We ran a simulation in which the AI system participated in the double-reading process that is used in the UK, and found that the AI system maintained non-inferior performance and reduced the workload of the second reader by 88%. This robust assessment of the AI system paves the way for clinical trials to improve the accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates from the National Health Interview Survey, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this 2018 update, we also summarize the new American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline and include a clarification in the language of the 2013 lung cancer screening guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:297-316. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

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

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.

Assessing the efficiency of eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomography lung screening in China according to current guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies indicates that lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines with high rates of lung cancer (LC) underdiagnosis, and although current screening guidelines have been updated and eligibility criteria for screening have been expanded, there are no studies comparing the efficiency of LCS guidelines in Chinese population. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2022, 31,394 asymptomatic individuals were screened using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) at our institution. Demographic data and relevant LC risk factors were collected. The efficiency of the LCS for each guideline criteria was expressed as the efficiency ratio (ER). The inclusion rates, eligibility rates, LC detection rates, and ER based on the different eligibility criteria of the four guidelines were comparatively analyzed. The four guidelines were as follows: China guideline for the screening and early detection of lung cancer (CGSL), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP). RESULTS: Of 31,394 participants, 298 (155 women, 143 men) were diagnosed with LC. For CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines, the eligibility rates for guidelines were 13.92%, 6.97%, 6.81%, and 53.46%; ERe for eligibility criteria were 1.46%, 1.64%, 1.51%, and 1.13%, respectively; and for the inclusion rates, they were 19.0%, 9.5%, 9.3%, and 73.0%, respectively. LCs which met the screening criteria of CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines were 29.2%, 16.4%, 14.8%, and 86.6%, respectively. The age and smoking criteria for CGSL were stricter, hence resulting in lower rates of LC meeting the screening criteria. The CGSL, NCCN, and USPSTF guidelines showed the highest underdiagnosis in the 45-49 age group (17.4%), while the I-ELCAP guideline displayed the highest missed diagnosis rate (3.0%) in the 35-39 age group. Males and females significantly differed in eligibility based on the criteria of the four guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The I-ELCAP guideline has the highest eligibility rate for both males and females. But its actual efficiency ratio for those deemed eligible by the guideline was the lowest. Whereas the NCCN guideline has the highest ERe value for those deemed eligible by the guideline.

Intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility evaluation toward international validation status of the AmpFire assay.

To meet the screening goal of WHO's 90-70-90 strategy aimed at eliminating cervical cancer (CC) by 2030, clinical validation of human papillomavirus (HPV) assays is essential to provide accurate and valid results through fulfilling three criteria of the international validation guidelines (IVGs). Previously, the clinical accuracy of the AmpFire® HPV Screening 16/18/HR assay (AmpFire assay) was reported but reproducibility data are lacking. Here, we aim to evaluate the intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the AmpFire assay. The reproducibility of the isothermal AmpFire assay was assessed using 556 cervical cell samples collected from women attending CC screening and biobanked in a Belgian HPV national reference center. This assay detects HPV16, HPV18, and 12 other high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types (31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) in aggregate. Lower 95% confidence interval bound around the assay's reproducibility should exceed 87%, with κ ≥ 0.50. Additionally, a literature review of the assay's clinical performance was performed. The AmpFire assay showed an excellent intralaboratory (96.4%, 95% CI:94.5-97.8%, κ = 0.920) and interlaboratory (95.3%, 95% CI:93.2-96.9%, κ = 0.897) reproducibility. One study demonstrated noninferior sensitivity of a prototype AmpFire assay targeting 15 hrHPV types (including HPV53) to detect CIN2+. However, clinical specificity became similar to the comparator after removing HPV53 from analyses. The low-cost and easy-to-use AmpFire assay presents excellent reproducibility and-after removing HPV53 from the targeted types-fulfills also clinical accuracy requirements. Inclusion of HPV53, which is not recognized as carcinogenic, comprises clinical specificity of screening assays.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the authors summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines, describe an update of their guideline for using human papillomavirus vaccination for cancer prevention, describe updates in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening, discuss interim findings from the UK Collaborative Trial on Ovarian Cancer Screening, and provide the latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:100-121. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Strategic analysis and recommendations of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD) regarding population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: population-based screening programs are effective to reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality and incidence. However, given their complex development, sound organization and design do not warrant success. This study provides a strategic analysis of the Spanish programs, as well as recommendations in an attempt to contribute to their optimization. METHODS: a multidisciplinary panel of researchers, supported by the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), has performed a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis, from which a proposal of recommendations was developed; their adequacy was judged using an adapted version of the RAND/UCLA method. RESULTS: 5 weaknesses, 3 threats, 5 strengths and 5 opportunities were identified, and a total of 15 recommendations were developed emphasizing aspects with room for improvement in program orientation, particularly the need to increase participation, fight variability and inequities, improve information processes and systems quality, ensure specific, adequate funding, and evaluate health results. CONCLUSION: promoting an operational collaboration framework between all the public health and care levels involved should facilitate effective communication with society regarding the benefits of taking part in population screening programs while persuading decision and policy makers of the critical importance of taking an active, determined stance regarding its implementation.

Framework and Strategies to Eliminate Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes.

Preventable differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality across racial/ethnic, economic, geographic, and other groups can be eliminated by assuring equitable access and quality across the care continuum, but few interventions have been demonstrated to do so. Multicomponent strategies designed with a health equity framework may be effective. A health equity framework takes into account social determinants of health, multilevel influences (policy, community, delivery, and individual levels), screening processes, and community engagement. Effective strategies for increasing screening uptake include patient navigation and other interventions for structural barriers, reminders and clinical decision support, and data to continuously track metrics and guide targets for improvement. Community resource gaps should be addressed to assure high-quality services irrespective of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status. One model combinespopulation-based proactive outreach screening with screening delivery at in-person or virtual points of contact, as well as community engagement. Patient- and provider-based behavioral interventions may be considered for increasing screening demand and delivery. Providing a choice of screening tests is recommended for CRC screening, and access to colonoscopy is required for completion of the CRC screening process.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Is It Time to Expand Our Definition of "Clinical Utility"?

Currently, genetic tests that predict cancer risk or risk of recurrence in patients who have had their cancer treated with curative intent must have proven "clinical utility" to be recommended by the organizations responsible for publishing the standard-of-care guidelines for cancer care.Based on the current definition of clinical utility, most patients are denied testing for cancer-predisposing genes or pathogenic germline variants even though germline testing has been proven as highly accurate in identifying pathogenic germline variant carriers, there are measures recommended to prevent and diagnose early cancers associated with particular PGVs, and disparities in patient access to genetic tests are well described.Similarly, despite dozens of studies demonstrating that detected circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after curative intention therapy of different cancer types is a highly accurate biomarker that predicts recurrence, the major organizations that publish guidelines for cancer monitoring after curative intention therapy recommend against using ctDNA assays to detect minimal residual disease and thereby predict recurrence for all solid tumor malignancies.Here, the primary reasons that these genetic tests are considered to lack proven clinical utility and the primary evidence suggesting that a broader definition of clinical utility should be considered are discussed. By expanding the definition of clinical utility, many patients will benefit from the information gained from having these genetic tests.

Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates in patients undergoing MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy with two different software-based systems.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy is a routinely used diagnostic tool for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. However, a clear superiority of the optimal approach for software-based MRI processing during biopsy procedures is still unanswered. To investigate the impact of robotic approach and software-based image processing (rigid vs. elastic) during MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (FBx) on overall and clinically significant (cs) PCa detection. METHODS: The study relied on the instructional retrospective biopsy data collected data between September 2013 and August 2017. Overall, 241 men with at least one suspicious lesion (PI-RADS ≥ 3) on multiparametric MRI underwent FBx. The study protocol contains a systematic 12-core sextant biopsy plus 2 cores per targeted lesion. One experienced urologist performed 1048 targeted biopsy cores; 467 (45%) cores were obtained using rigid processing, while the remaining 581 (55%) cores relied on elastic image processing. CsPCa was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥ 2. The effect of rigid versus elastic FBx on overall and csPCa detection rates was determined. Propensity score weighting and multivariable regression models were used to account for potential biases inherent to the retrospective study design. RESULTS: In multivariable regression analyses, age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and PIRADS ≥ 3 lesion were related to higher odds of finding csPCa. Elastic software-based image processing was independently associated with a higher overall PCa (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6 [2.2-6.1], p < 0.001) and csPCa (OR = 4.8 [2.6-8.8], p < 0.001) detection, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to existing literature, our results suggest that the robotic-driven software registration with elastic fusion might have a substantial effect on PCa detection.

Effects of the 2012 and 2018 US preventive services task force prostate cancer screening guidelines on pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: In May 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prostate cancer (PCa) screening for ages 55-69 be an individual decision. This changed from the USPSTF's May 2012 recommendation against screening for all ages. The effects of the 2012 and 2018 updates on pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy are unclear. METHODS: This study included 647 patients with PCa who underwent prostatectomy at our institution from 2005 to 2018. Patient groups were those diagnosed before the 2012 update (n = 179), between 2012 and 2018 updates (n = 417), and after the 2018 update (n = 51). We analyzed changes in the age of diagnosis, pathologic Gleason grade group (pGS), pathologic stage, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and favorable/unfavorable pathology. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for pre-biopsy covariables (age, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], African American race, family history) assessed impacts of 2012 and 2018 updates on pGS and pathologic stage. A p  < 0.05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: Median age increased from 60 to 63 (p = 0.001) between 2012 and 2018 updates and to 64 after the 2018 update. A significant decrease in pGS1, pGS2, pT2, and favorable pathology (p < 0.001), and a significant increase in pGS3, pGS4, pGS5, pT3a, and unfavorable pathology (p < 0.001) was detected between 2012 and 2018 updates. There was no significant change in pT3b or LVI between 2012 and 2018 updates. On multivariable regression, diagnosis between 2012 and 2018 updates was significantly associated with pGS4 or pGS5 and pT3a (p < 0.001). Diagnosis after the 2018 update was significantly associated with pT3a (p = 0.005). Odds of pGS4 or pGS5 were 3.2× higher (p < 0.001) if diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates, and 2.3× higher (p = 0.051) if after the 2018 update. Odds of pT3a were 2.4× higher (p < 0.001) if diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates and 2.9× higher (p = 0.005) if after the 2018 update. CONCLUSIONS: The 2012 USPSTF guidelines negatively impacted pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy. Patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates had increased frequency of higher-risk PCa and lower frequency of favorable disease. In addition, data after the 2018 update demonstrate a continued negative impact on postprostatectomy pathology. Thus, further investigation of the long-term effects of the 2018 USPSTF update is warranted.

Rational HCC screening approaches for patients with NAFLD.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with an increased risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), especially among those who have cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis, but 20-30% of cases of NAFLD-related HCC occur in the absence of advanced fibrosis. The prevalence of NAFLD-related HCC is increasing in most countries worldwide. There are few direct data to support or refute the efficacy or effectiveness of HCC surveillance in NAFLD or to guide its application. We use evidence on surveillance in other conditions and studies on the clinical course of patients with NAFLD to arrive at recommendations for rational approaches to HCC surveillance in this growing cohort of patients. We also outline gaps in research and practice, including opportunities to advance the field.

Racially Conscious Cancer Screening Guidelines: A Path Towards Culturally Competent Science.

OBJECTIVE: To review the racial composition of the study populations that the current USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer are based on, and the effects of their application across non-white individuals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: USPSTF guidelines commonly become the basis for establishing standards of care, yet providers are often unaware of the racial composition of the study populations they are based on. METHODS: We accessed the USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer via their website, and reviewed all referenced publications for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on the racial composition of their study populations. We then used PubMed to identify publications addressing the generalizability of such guidelines across non-white individuals. Lastly, we reviewed all guidelines published by non-USPSTF organizations to identify the availability of race-specific recommendations. RESULTS: Most RCTs used as basis for the current USPSTF guidelines either did not report race, or enrolled cohorts that were not representative of the U.S. population. Several studies were identified demonstrating the broad application of such guidelines across non-white individuals can lead to underdiagnosis and higher levels of advanced disease. Nearly all guideline-issuing bodies fail to provide race-specific recommendations, despite often acknowledging increased disease burden among non-whites. CONCLUSION: Concerted efforts to overcome limitations in the generalizability of RCTs are required to provide screening guidelines that are truly applicable to non-white populations. Broader policy changes to improve the pipeline for minority populations into science and medicine are needed to address the ongoing lack of diversity in these fields.

Colorectal Cancer Incidence After Colonoscopy at Ages 45-49 or 50-54 Years.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at ages younger than 50 years is increasing, leading to proposals to lower the CRC screening initiation age to 45 years. Data on the effectiveness of CRC screening at ages 45-49 years are lacking. METHODS: We studied the association between undergoing colonoscopy at ages 45-49 or 50-54 years and CRC incidence in a retrospective population-based cohort study using Florida's linked Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases with mandated reporting from 2005 to 2017 and Cox models extended for time-varying exposure. RESULTS: Among 195,600 persons with and 2.6 million without exposure to colonoscopy at ages 45-49 years, 276 and 4844 developed CRC, resulting in CRC incidence rates of 20.8 (95% CI, 18.5-23.4) and 30.6 (95% CI, 29.8-31.5) per 100,000 person-years, respectively. Among 660,248 persons with and 2.4 million without exposure to colonoscopy at ages 50-54 years, 798 and 6757 developed CRC, resulting in CRC incidence rates of 19.0 (95% CI, 17.7-20.4) and 51.9 (95% CI, 50.7-53.1) per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios for incident CRC after undergoing compared with not undergoing colonoscopy were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44-0.56) at ages 45-49 years and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.29-0.34) at ages 50-54 years. The results were similar for women and men (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57 and hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.62 at ages 45-49 years, and hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.31-0.39 and hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.32 at ages 50-54 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy at ages 45-49 or 50-54 years was associated with substantial decreases in subsequent CRC incidence. These findings can inform screening guidelines.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.