Search

A recent study suggests that the recommended 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies may be extended to 15 years for adults with no family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) whose first colonoscopy is negative for CRC. The study, which used Swedish nationwide registry data, found that the 10-year cumulative risk for CRC and CRC mortality was lower in the group with a negative initial colonoscopy compared to the control group. Extending the screening interval could potentially avoid unnecessary invasive examinations while still maintaining effective detection and prevention of CRC. However, the study primarily included White individuals, so further validation is needed for other populations. [Extracted from the article]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ColoSense, a multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults aged 45 years or older who are at average risk for CRC. ColoSense detects colorectal neoplasia–associated RNA markers and the presence of occult hemoglobin in human stool. A positive ColoSense test result may indicate the presence of CRC, advanced adenomas, or serrated precancerous lesions and should be followed by a colonoscopy. The sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test was 93% for CRC, 100% for early (stage I) CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas. The company plans to make ColoSense available in the United States later this year or early in 2025. [Extracted from the article]

Multitarget stool-based tests are being developed as potential alternatives to the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. These new tests, such as Cologuard 2.0, ColoSense, and a protein-based test, aim to improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positive results. Preliminary studies have shown that these multitarget tests have higher sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas compared to the standard FIT, but they may also have lower specificity, leading to more false-positive findings. These tests are still under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and may require several more years of development before they become available for widespread use. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on a study that examined the use of a blood test as a second-line option for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in individuals who had declined both colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). It discusses offering the blood test increased CRC screening without reducing the use of preferred first-line options; the number of people who underwent timely colonoscopy after a positive blood test did not increase; and the ongoing challenge in CRC prevention and treatment.

The article discusses research on artificial womb for improving the survival chances of extremely premature babies. It references a study by Moritz F. Sinner et al, published in the "European Heart Journal." Topics covered include the change of survival among babies born preterm, the disadvantage of consuming too much choline and the assessment of how long patients with positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results waited to get follow-up colonoscopies.

The article reports that colonoscopy should not be used to screen adults for colon cancer as recommended by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health care. It states that it recommends against screening adults aged 75 years and older because existing studies do not show an improvement in colon cancer mortality from such screening. It mentions that Canadian programs recommend screening using stool tests with guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).

The article offers news briefs as of November 2014 on topics including the impact of exposure to second-hand smoke and air pollution in the body mass index in children, risk factors of sleep disorders in firefighters and effectiveness of fecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer.

The article discusses a study which reports patient's preference to stool tests known as fecal occult blood testing over colonoscopy for screening of colorectal cancer. It suggests consideration of patient's preferences over two tests before recommendation of a particular test for screening by doctor. It mentions that 69 percent of study participants had selected stool tests on providing choices between the two available screening tests.

A government task force has recommended stopping colorectal cancer screening at age 75 for people who have been screened regularly and have no evidence of disease. It also advised that no one over 85 be screened, updating a 2002 report that recommended regular screening for everyone over 50. The task force still advises regular colonoscopies, sigmoidoscopies and fecal occult blood tests beginning at 50. But it concluded that after 75, the risks of the procedures begin to outweigh the benefits for most patients. After 85, they concluded, there is good evidence that screening is ineffective in extending life for anyone. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Discusses the importance of new fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) in screening for colon cancer and potentially cancerous polyps. Description of the new tests, which incorporate technology that improves their reliability compared to older FOBTs; Significance of annual home screening with an FOBT to early detection of colon cancer; Comparison of FOBTs to more evasive screening options, such as the colonoscopy.

Discusses the findings of a study on the limitations of single fecal occult blood test performed by doctors to screen for colorectal cancer.

Reveals that the fecal occult blood screening may help prevent people from getting colon cancer. Benefits of the screening to people who have colon cancer; Techniques in the diagnosis of colon cancer.

Reports on the effectivity of submitting to a fecal occult blood test in reducing death rate from colon cancer in the United States. Information on a study to be published on the periodical `Journal of the National Cancer Institute' about colon cancer; Age of people who are encouraged to take this test; Comments from Doctor John H. Bond, co-author of the study.