Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale / Concordancia entre la percepción de limpieza colónica referida por los pacientes y la limpieza colónica evaluada mediante una escala de limpieza validada

Aims Patients’ perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Patients and methods Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. Results Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8 ± 13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P < 0.001), although fair (k = 0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k = 0.41). Conclusions The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning (AU)

Objetivos La percepción de los pacientes sobre su calidad de limpieza previa a la colonoscopia puede guiar estrategias de rescate para mejorar la limpieza durante la colonoscopia. El objetivo fue evaluar la concordancia entre la calidad de limpieza percibida por los pacientes con la calidad durante la colonoscopia utilizando la escala de preparación colónica de Boston (BBPS). Pacientes y métodos Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos remitidos a una colonoscopia ambulatoria. Se diseñó un set de 4 imágenes representativas de diferentes grados de limpieza. Los pacientes elegían la imagen que se asemejaba más a la última deposición. Se calculó la concordancia entre la percepción del paciente y la BBPS. Una puntuación de la BBPS < 2 puntos en cualquier segmento se consideró una limpieza inadecuada. Resultados Se incluyeron 633 pacientes. Globalmente, 107 pacientes (16,9%) presentaron una limpieza inadecuada durante la colonoscopia, y en el 12,2% de los casos, la percepción del paciente fue de limpieza inadecuada. La percepción del paciente presentó un valor predictivo positivo y negativo de 54,6 y 88,3%, respectivamente, para predecir la calidad de limpieza mediante la BBPS. La concordancia entre la percepción del paciente y la BBPS fue significativa (p < 0,001), aunque aceptable (k = 0,37). Los resultados fueron similares en una cohorte de validación de 378 pacientes (k = 0,41). Conclusiones Existe concordancia entre la limpieza percibida por el paciente y la calidad de la limpieza mediante una escala validada, aunque esta fue aceptable. Estos resultados sustentan el uso de estrategias de rescate en los pacientes con percepción de una limpieza colónica inadecuada (AU)

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale.

AIMS: Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

A Liquid Biopsy Signature for the Detection of Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) is a distinct clinical and molecular entity with poor survival outcomes compared with late-onset CRC. Although the incidence of EOCRC is rising, current CRC screening strategies have several limitations in diagnostic performance for EOCRC. In view of this clinical challenge, novel and robust biomarkers for detection of EOCRC are necessary. The aim of this study was to develop a circulating micro RNA (miRNA) signature for the diagnosis of patients with EOCRC. METHODS: A systematic discovery approach by analyzing a large, publicly available, noncoding RNA expression profiling dataset (GSE115513) was used. A panel of miRNAs was identified, which was subsequently validated in blood samples from patients with EOCRC in 2 independent cohorts (n = 149) compared with controls (n = 110) and pre/postoperative plasma specimens (n = 22) using quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. RESULTS: In the discovery phase, 4 miRNAs were found to be expressed in blood samples. A combination signature of these 4 miRNAs (miR-193a-5p, miR-210, miR-513a-5p, and miR-628-3p) yielded an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.96) for identification of EOCRC in the training cohort. The miRNA panel performance was then confirmed in an independent validation cohort (area under the curve, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.93). Moreover, the miRNA panel robustly identified patients with early-stage EOCRC (P < .001). The decreased expression of miRNAs in postsurgery plasma specimens indicated their tumor specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel miRNA signature for the diagnosis of EOCRC has the potential to identify patients with EOCRC with high accuracy for clinical application in the noninvasive diagnosis of EOCRC.

Epigenome-Wide DNA Methylation Profiling of Normal Mucosa Reveals HLA-F Hypermethylation as a Biomarker Candidate for Serrated Polyposis Syndrome.

Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is associated with a high risk for colorectal cancer. Intense promoter hypermethylation is a frequent molecular finding in the serrated pathway and may be present in normal mucosa, predisposing to the formation of serrated lesions. To identify novel biomarkers for SPS, fresh-frozen samples of normal mucosa from 50 patients with SPS and 19 healthy individuals were analyzed by using the 850K BeadChip Technology (Infinium). Aberrant methylation levels were correlated with gene expression using a next-generation transcriptome profiling tool. Two validation steps were performed on independent cohorts: first, on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue of the normal mucosa; and second, on 24 serrated lesions. The most frequently hypermethylated genes were HLA-F, SLFN12, HLA-DMA, and RARRES3; and the most frequently hypomethylated genes were PIWIL1 and ANK3 (Δß = 10%; P < 0.05). Expression levels of HLA-F, SLFN12, and HLA-DMA were significantly different between SPS patients and healthy individuals and correlated well with the methylation status of the corresponding differentially methylated region (fold change, >20%; r > 0.55; P < 0.001). Significant hypermethylation of CpGs in the gene body of HLA-F was also found in serrated lesions (Δß = 23%; false discovery rate = 0.01). Epigenome-wide methylation profiling has revealed numerous differentially methylated CpGs in normal mucosa from SPS patients. Significant hypermethylation of HLA-F is a novel biomarker candidate for SPS.

Identification of Lynch Syndrome Carriers among Patients with Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare disease which can be associated with Lynch syndrome (LS). LS tumors are characterized by the presence of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or the loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. In SBA, the frequency of MMR deficient (MMRd) tumors varies from 5% to 35%. This study aims to describe the prevalence of LS carriers among patients with MMRd small bowel adenocarcinomas. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study with identification and MMR testing of all consecutive SBA between 2004 and 2020 in a multicenter Spanish study. Demographical data, tumor characteristics, follow-up and survival information were collected. Germline testing was driven by identification of MMRd tumors. RESULTS: A total of 94 individuals diagnosed with SBA were recruited. We observed 20 (21.3%) MMRd tumors. In 9/15 (60%) patients with MMRd tumors, a pathogenic variant was identified (three MLH1, four MSH2, one MSH6 and one PMS2). Accordingly, the prevalence of LS among all SBA cases was 10.1%. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-fifth of SBA display MMRd and in more than a half is due to LS. Our data supports the implementation of universal MMR tumor testing among SBA for the identification of LS families.

An Enhanced High-Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy Is Not Better Than a Conventional Low-Volume One in Patients at Risk of Poor Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced bowel preparation strategy (EBS) improves colonic cleansing in patients at high risk for inadequate bowel cleansing (HRI). Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial included consecutive HRI patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy between February and October 2019. HRI was considered if patients scored >1.225 according to a previously validated bowel-cleansing predictive score. HRI patients were randomized (1:1) to a low-volume conventional bowel cleansing strategy (CBS) (1-day low residue diet (LRD) plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid) or to an EBS (3-day LRD plus 10 mg oral bisacodyl plus 4 L PEG). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the quality of cleanliness. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. A sample size of 130 patients per group was estimated to reach a 15% difference in favor of EBP. Results: A total of 253 HRI patients were included (mean age 69.8 ± 9.5 years, 51.8% women). No statistically significant differences were found in the BBPS scale between the two groups in the ITT analysis (CBS 76.8% vs. EBS 79.7%, P = 0.58) or PP analysis (CBS 78% vs. EBS 84.3%, P = 0.21), risk difference 2.9% (95% CI-7.26 to 39.16) in the ITT analysis, or risk difference 6.3% (95% CI-3.48 to 16.08) in PP analysis. No differences in preparation tolerance, compliance, adverse effects, or colonoscopy findings were found. Conclusion: EBS is not superior to CBS in hard-to-prepare patients. (EUDRACT: 2017-000787-15, NCT03830489). Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03830489.

Increasing the low residue diet to 3 days does not improve the bowel cleansing in hard to prepare patients: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that the number of low residue diet (LRD) days does not influence the bowel cleansing quality in non-selected patients. However, there are not data in the subgroup of patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day LRD improved the bowel cleansing quality in patients with risk factors of poor bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial carried out between December 2017 and March 2018 in a tertiary care hospital. Patients with high risk of poor bowel cleansing were selected following a validated score. The patients were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the main outcome. RESULTS: 135 patients (1-day LRD group=67, 3-day LRD=68) were included. The rate of adequate cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups in the ITT analysis: 76.1%, 95% CI: [64.6-84.8] vs. 79.4%, 95% CI: [68.2-87.4]; odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% CI [0.54-2.73]) or in the PP analysis: 77.3%, 95% CI: [65.7-85.8] vs. 80.3%, 95% CI: [69.0-88.3]; OR 1.2, 95% CI [0.52-2.77]). Compliance with the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulties with the LRD and the polyp/adenoma detection rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 1-day LRD is not inferior to 3-day LRD in patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing.

Strategies to Improve Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

Bowel cleansing is one of the most important parameters included in the evaluation of colonoscopy quality. The available evidence suggests that inadequate bowel preparation reduces the diagnostic yield of colorectal neoplasia and increases post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer risk. Nowadays, up to 30% of patients referred for colonoscopy have a poor bowel cleansing. Recently, several studies have analyzed the risk factors for inadequate bowel cleansing as well as the strategies to optimize bowel preparation. In this review, we have focused on summarizing the available evidence in this field.

Estrategias para optimizar la calidad de la limpieza colónica / Strategies to optimise the quality of bowel cleansing

La colonoscopia es el patrón oro para el diagnóstico de lesiones epiteliales colorrectales y su eficiencia está íntimamente relacionada con la calidad de la exploración. Lograr una adecuada limpieza colónica es un factor fundamental para alcanzar los estándares de calidad recomendados. Actualmente, hasta el 30% de los pacientes a los que se realiza una colonoscopia ambulatoria presentan una calidad deficiente. Por ello, en los últimos años numerosos estudios han diseñado estrategias para optimizar la limpieza colónica mejorando la adherencia y la tolerancia de la solución de limpieza colónica o la eficacia de esta. La identificación de factores predictores de una limpieza colónica inadecuada ha propiciado el desarrollo de estrategias de preparación individualizadas con resultados prometedores. En este artículo se revisan los estudios que evaluaron los factores asociados a una limpieza colónica deficiente, así como las estrategias diseñadas para optimizar la limpieza colónica en pacientes con elevada probabilidad de una limpieza colónica inadecuada

Colonoscopy is the gold standard procedure for detecting neoplastic lesions of the colon and its efficiency is closely linked to the quality of the procedure. Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial factor in achieving the recommended quality indicators, but poor preparation has been reported in up to 30% of outpatients referred for colonoscopy. Consequently, over recent years, a number of studies have developed strategies to optimise bowel cleansing by improving adherence and tolerance to and the efficacy of the bowel preparation. Moreover, the identification of risk factors for inadequate bowel cleansing has led to tailored bowel preparation strategies being designed, with promising results. We aimed to review studies that assessed risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and strategies to optimise bowel cleansing in patients at high risk of having poor preparation

Impact of a 1-day versus 3-day low-residue diet on bowel cleansing quality before colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day low-residue diet (LRD) improved bowel cleansing quality compared with a 1-day LRD regimen. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality as evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (adequate cleansing ≥ 2 points per segment). Secondary outcomes were adherence to and level of satisfaction with the LRD, difficulty following the dietary recommendations, and willingness to repeat the same LRD in the future. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the primary outcome. A superiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that a 3-day LRD regimen was superior to a 1-day LRD regimen with a margin of 10 %. RESULTS: 390 patients (1-day LRD group = 196, 3-day LRD = 194) were included. The cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups: ITT analysis 82.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 77.4 to 88.0) vs. 85.6 % (95 %CI 80.7 to 90.5), with odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95 %CI 0.72 to 2.15); PP analysis 85.0 % (95 %CI 79.9 to 90.1) vs. 88.6 % (95 %CI 84.0 to 93.2), with OR 1.4 (95 %CI 0.88 to 2.52). No differences were found regarding adherence to the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulty with the LRD, and the polyp/adenoma detection rates. CONCLUSION: 3-day LRD did not offer advantages over 1-day LRD in preparation for colonoscopy.

Strategies to optimise the quality of bowel cleansing. / Estrategias para optimizar la calidad de la limpieza colónica.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard procedure for detecting neoplastic lesions of the colon and its efficiency is closely linked to the quality of the procedure. Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial factor in achieving the recommended quality indicators, but poor preparation has been reported in up to 30% of outpatients referred for colonoscopy. Consequently, over recent years, a number of studies have developed strategies to optimise bowel cleansing by improving adherence and tolerance to and the efficacy of the bowel preparation. Moreover, the identification of risk factors for inadequate bowel cleansing has led to tailored bowel preparation strategies being designed, with promising results. We aimed to review studies that assessed risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and strategies to optimise bowel cleansing in patients at high risk of having poor preparation.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation: a validated predictive score.

Background and study aim Inadequate bowel cleansing negatively affects the efficiency of colonoscopy in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to design and validate a predictive model for inadequate bowel cleanliness. Patients and methods The model was built from 667 consecutive outpatients (development cohort) who were prospectively scheduled for colonoscopy between June and September 2014. The validation cohort included 409 outpatients who underwent colonoscopy between October and December 2014. Cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Bowel preparation was administered on the same day as the examination. Results In the development cohort, BBPS was adequate in 541 patients (81.1 %). At multivariate analysis, antidepressants (odds ratio [OR] 4.25, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.91 - 9.47), co-morbidity (OR 3.35, 95 %CI 2.16 - 5.18), constipation (OR 2.09, 95 %CI 1.29 - 3.40), and abdominal/pelvic surgery (OR 1.60, 95 %CI 1.03 - 2.47) were independent predictors for inadequate cleansing. The model built with these variables showed an area under the curve of 0.72 in the development cohort and 0.70 in the validation cohort. A cutoff of 1.225 predicted inadequate bowel preparation with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 60.3 % (95 %CI 51.6 - 68.4), 75.4 % (95 %CI 71.6 - 78.9), 36.4 % (95 %CI 30.1 - 43.1), and 89.1 % (95 %CI 85.9 - 91.6) in the development cohort, and 50.0 % (95 %CI 38.1 - 61.9), 80.0 % (95 %CI 75.3 - 84.2), 35.7 % (95 %CI 26.4 - 45.6), and 87.9 % (95 %CI 83.7 - 91.3) in the validation cohort. Conclusion A simple score may assist the clinician in predicting which patients are at high risk of inadequate bowel cleanliness. This may guide changes in bowel preparation strategy accordingly.

Comparison of Two Intensive Bowel Cleansing Regimens in Patients With Previous Poor Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVES: Inadequate bowel cleansing is a major burden for endoscopy units. The aim of this study was to compare two intensive bowel cleansing regimens in patients with previous colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation. METHODS: Patients with inadequate cleansing at index colonoscopy were randomized to 4-L split-dose polyethylene-glycol (PEG) regimen vs. 2-L split-dose PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) regimen. All individuals underwent a 3-day low-residue diet and received 10 mg of bisacodyl, the day before colonoscopy. Cleansing was considered to be adequate if the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scored ≥2 at each colonic segment. A non-inferiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that colonic cleansing with 2-L PEG+Asc was not inferior to 4-l PEG, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10%. RESULTS: Adequate bowel cleansing was significantly higher in patients assigned to 4-L PEG regimen (n=127) vs. those randomized to 2-L PEG+Asc regimen (n=129) by intention-to-treat analysis (81.1 vs. 67.4%, odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.163-3.689)) and by per-protocol analysis (86.6 vs. 71.7%, OR: 2.55, 95% CI: (1.316-4.922)). The study was terminated for futility after the interim analysis, because the 95% CI of the difference of proportions was 3.13-24.27% in the intention-to-treat analysis and 3.33-26.47% in the per-protocol analysis, confirming the superiority of 4-L PEG preparation. CONCLUSIONS: After 3-day low-residue diet and oral bisacodyl before colonoscopy, colon cleansing with 4-L split-dose PEG was superior to 2-L split-dose PEG+Asc in patients with previous inadequate cleansing. (EUDRACT: 2013-002506-31, NCT02073552).

Colorectal cancer screening in the familial risk population: Is colonoscopy still the strategy of choice? / Cribado del cáncer colorrectal en población de riesgo familiar. Es aún la colonoscopia la estrategia de elección?

First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at high risk of this disease. For this reason, medical organizations and clinical guidelines recommend more intensive screening and surveillance for such first-degree relatives than for the average-risk population. Colonoscopy has been the cornerstone of CRC screening in this setting. Although colonoscopy is the most sensitive technique for the detection of neoplastic lesions (especially non-advanced adenomas), its role is less clear for CRC. In addition, screening colonoscopy has several limitations that may affect the success of a screening campaign, such as poor participant acceptance, the need for skilled endoscopists, participant access to screening colonoscopy, overburdened endoscopy units, potential complications, and procedure-related costs. In addition, recent evidence has cast doubt on the advantage of colonoscopy over other strategies for the detection of advanced neoplastic lesions. Despite being less sensitive in general, other screening methods frequently recommended in the average-risk population may be more acceptable and thus help increase CRC screening uptake. This review discusses recent evidence on the risk of CRC in first-degree relatives, the advantages and disadvantages of each screening technique, participation rates depending on the technique, patient preferences, and barriers to screening

Los familiares de primer grado de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal (CCR) tienen mayor riesgo de CCR que la población general. Por este motivo, las organizaciones médicas recomiendan una vigilancia más intensiva en esta población. Aunque la colonoscopia ha sido considerada la piedra angular de cribado, tiene limitaciones que pueden afectar el éxito de una campaña de cribado, que incluyen: baja aceptación, necesidad de personal entrenado, sobrecarga de trabajo, complicaciones y costes relacionados con el procedimiento. Evidencias recientes cuestionan la ventaja de la colonoscopia sobre otras estrategias de cribado para la detección de lesiones neoplásicas avanzadas. Aunque otras estrategias son menos sensibles, pueden ser mejor aceptadas y podrían incrementar la participación del cribado del CCR en los familiares de primer grado. Esta revisión discute la evidencia actual sobre: riesgo de CCR en familiares de primer grado, beneficios y contrapartidas de cada técnica de cribado, participación de cada estrategia, preferencias y las barreras para la participación

Colorectal cancer screening in the familial risk population: Is colonoscopy still the strategy of choice?

First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at high risk of this disease. For this reason, medical organizations and clinical guidelines recommend more intensive screening and surveillance for such first-degree relatives than for the average-risk population. Colonoscopy has been the cornerstone of CRC screening in this setting. Although colonoscopy is the most sensitive technique for the detection of neoplastic lesions (especially non-advanced adenomas), its role is less clear for CRC. In addition, screening colonoscopy has several limitations that may affect the success of a screening campaign, such as poor participant acceptance, the need for skilled endoscopists, participant access to screening colonoscopy, overburdened endoscopy units, potential complications, and procedure-related costs. In addition, recent evidence has cast doubt on the advantage of colonoscopy over other strategies for the detection of advanced neoplastic lesions. Despite being less sensitive in general, other screening methods frequently recommended in the average-risk population may be more acceptable and thus help increase CRC screening uptake. This review discusses recent evidence on the risk of CRC in first-degree relatives, the advantages and disadvantages of each screening technique, participation rates depending on the technique, patient preferences, and barriers to screening.