Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Future Directions

  • Prevention and Early Detection (R Benamouzig, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

It is estimated that over 50,000 people will die from colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2014, making CRC the third leading cause of cancer death in the USA. During the last decade, we gained a better understanding of CRC pathophysiology and improved techniques for CRC prevention. Colonoscopy, as a cancer prevention measure, is essential in this task. Our article will review several aspects of colonoscopy and its use in CRC prevention. In addition, we will cover non-technical aspect such as quality measures, improving colonoscopy uptake, new bowel preparation formulations, sedation, and quality metrics. Next, we will discuss advances in technology and techniques including water immersion, new colonoscopes, and new imaging methods. Finally, we will cover two areas of major recent interest, “resect and discard” and sessile serrated polyps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. American Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer facts & figures 2014–2016. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2014.

  2. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L, et al. Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2014;14(3):709–17. Population-based case-control study showing that colonoscopy reduced the risk of CRC up to 10 years, independently of indication for the study.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nishira R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1095–105. Study evaluating the association between lower endoscopy and CRC incidence. Colonoscopy showed reductions in incidence of distal CRC, proximal colon cancer and CRC mortality.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Madhoun MF, Tierney WM. The impact of video recording colonoscopy on adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(1):127–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS, et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosoc. 2013;77(6):925–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Coe SG, Wallace MB. Assessment of adenoma detection rate benchmarks in women versus men. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(4):631–5. Prospective study evaluating ADRs in males and females. Average-risk screening ADR was higher for both sexes with the same detection of advance pathology. The study raised the question of higher ADRs and its effect in colonoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;37(14):1298–306. Analysis of colonoscopies performed by 136 gastroenterologists to assess ADR and risk of CRC. The study showed an inverse association between ADR and interval CRC, advance interval cancer and fatal CRC. Each 1 % increase in ADR was associated with a 3% decrease risk of cancer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gohel TD, Burke CA, Lankaala P, et al. Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(7):1137–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Denis B, Sauleau EA, Gendre I, et al. The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy: a population-based cohort study. Dig Liver Dis. 2014;46(2)):176–81. Retrospective study evaluating ADR and MNA of 316 gastroenterologists. The study showed better discrimination between higher and lower detectors with MNA when compared to ADR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kahi CJ, Vemulapalli KC, Johnson CS, et al. Improving measurement of the adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy quality metric: the Indiana University experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(3):448–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gellad ZF, Voilis CI, Lin L, et al. Physician perceptions on colonoscopy quality: results of a national survey of gastroenterologists. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2014. Epub 2014 Mar 6.

  13. Lukin DJ, Jandorf LH, Dhulkifl RJ, et al. Effect of comorbid conditions on adherence to colorectal cancer screening. J Cancer Educ. 2012;27(2):269–76.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shapiro J, Klabunde CN, Thompson TD, et al. Patterns of colorectal cancer test use, including CT colonography, in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:895–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ojinnaka C. Determinants of variations in self-reported barriers to colonoscopy among uninsured patients in a primary care setting. JCommunity Health 2014. [Epub ahead print]

  16. Laiyemo A, Adebogun AO, Doubeni CA, et al. Influence of provider discussion and specific recommendation on colorectal cancer screening uptake among U.S. adults. Prev Med 2014. Jun 23. Epub

  17. Inadomi J, Vijan S, Janz NK, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(7):575–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Levy BT, Xu Y, Daly JM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to improve colon cancer screening in rural family medicine: an Iowa Research Network (IRENE) study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26(5):486–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zorzi M, Giorgi Rossi P, Cogo C, et al. A comparison of different strategies used to invite subjects with a positive faecal occult blood test to a colonoscopy assessment. A randomised controlled trial in population-based screening programmes. Prev Med. 2014;6:70–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Menees SB, Kim HM, Elliott EE, et al. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(3):510–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shieh TY, Chen MJ, Chang CW, et al. Effect of physician-delivered patient education on the quality of bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013. Dec 17. Epub

  22. Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L, et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut. 2014;63(1):125–30. Prospective study showing better quality of bowel preparation and rate of polyps detected after telephone re-education the day before colonoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Messick CA, Church J, Bennett A, et al. Serrated polyps: new classifications highlight clinical importance. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(11):1328–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Spring KJ, Zhao ZZ, Karamatic R, et al. High prevalence of sessile serrated adenomas with BRAF mutations: a prospective study of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2006;131(5):1400–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(1):42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Payne SR, Church TR, Wandell M, et al. Endoscopic detection of proximal serrated lesions and pathologic identification of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps vary on the basis of center. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(7):1119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA, et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(9):1315–29. Overview and current recommendations regarding management of serrated lesions.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Katz PO, Rex DK, Epstein M, et al. A dual-action, low-volume bowel cleanser administered the day before colonoscopy: results from the SEE CLEAR II study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(3):401–9. Randomized trial comparing day before sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (P/MC) vs polyethylene glycol (PEG-3350) solution and 10 mg bisacodyl tablets. P/MC was not inferior in terms of bowel cleansing and had better acceptability that PEG-3350 plus bisacodyl.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Voiosu T, Ratiu I, Voiosu A, et al. Time for individualized colonoscopy bowel-prep regimens? A randomized controlled trial comparing sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate versus 4-l split-dose polyethylene glycol. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2013;22(2):129–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Seo EH, Kim TO, Park MJ, et al. The efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy with consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopy in moderately sedated outpatients: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47(5):45–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Singh R, Neo EN, Nordeen N, et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(25):3250–3.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Iida T, Okamura S, Kakizaki S, et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation reduces the discomfort due to colonoscopy as objectively analyzed by salivary stress markers. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2013;76(2):219–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hsu WF, Hu WF, Chen YN, et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation can significantly reduce toilet use after colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2014;46(3):190–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hsieh Y, Koo M, Leung FW. A patient-blinded randomized, controlled trial comparing air insufflation, water immersion, and water exchange during minimally sedated colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1390–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cadoni S, Gallittu P, Sanna S, et al. A two-center randomized controlled trial of water-aided colonoscopy versus air insufflation colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014;46:212–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hsieh YH, Lin HJ, Tseng KC. Limited water infusion decreases pain during minimally sedated colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(17):2236–40.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cadoni S, Gallittu P, Sanna S, et al. A two-center randomized controlled trial of water-aided colonoscopy versus air insufflation colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014;46(3):212–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pohl J, Messer L, Behrens A, et al. Water infusion for cecal intubation increases patient tolerance, but does not improve intubation of unsedated colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(12):1039–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bannert C, Reinhart K, Dunkler D, et al. Sedation in screening colonoscopy: impact on quality indicators and complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(12):1837–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Paspatis GA, Tribonias G, Manolaraki NM, et al. Deep sedation compared with moderate sedation in polyp detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(6):137–44. Randomized trial demonstrating no difference in ADR between moderate and deep sedation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Adeyemo A, Bannazadeh M, Riggs T, et al. Does sedation type affect colonoscopy perforation rates? Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(1):110–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cooper GS, Kou TD, Rex DK. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):551–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Poincloux L, Laquiere A, Bazin JE, et al. A randomized controlled trial of endoscopist vs. anaesthetist-administered sedation for colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43(7):553–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rastogi A, Bansai A, Rao DS, et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with cap-assisted colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61(3):402–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yen AW, Leung JW, Leung FW. A novel method with significant impact on adenoma detection: combined water-exchange and cap-assisted colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(6):944–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop EM, Bossuyt PM, et al. Adenoma detection with cap-assisted colonoscopy versus regular colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61(10):1426–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Frieling T, Heuhaus F, Kuhlbusch-Zicklam R, et al. Prospective and randomized study to evaluate the clinical impact of cap assisted colonoscopy (CAC). Z Gastroenterol. 2013;51(12):1383–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chung SJ, Kim D, Song JH, et al. Comparison of detection and miss rates of narrow band imaging, flexible spectral imaging chromoendoscopy and white light at screening colonoscopy: a randomised controlled back-to-back study. Gut. 2014;63(5):785–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(3)):604–11. Meta-analysis demonstrating no increase in ADR when NBI is utilized.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Omata F, Ohde S, Despande GA, et al. Image-enhanced, chromo, and cap-assisted colonoscopy for improving adenoma/neoplasia detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014;49(2):222–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Leung WK, Lo OS, Liu KS, et al. Detection of colorectal adenoma by narrow band imaging (HQ190) vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(6):855–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Testoni PA, Notaristefano C, Vailati C, et al. High-definition colonoscopy with i-Scan: better diagnosis for small polyps and flat adenomas. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(37):5231–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Testoni PA, Notaristefano C, Di Leo M, et al. High-definition with i-Scan gives comparable accuracy for detecting colonic lesions by non-expert and expert endoscopists. Dig Liver Dis. 2013;45(6):481–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hong SN, Choe WH, Lee JH, et al. Prospective, randomized, back-to-back trial evaluating the usefulness of i-SCAN in screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(5):1011–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gralnek IM, Carr-Locke DL, Segol O, et al. Comparison of standard forward-viewing mode versus ultrawide-viewing mode of a novel colonoscopy platform: a prospective, multicenter study in the detection of simulated polyps in an in vitro colon model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(3):472–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):353–60.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(2):246–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lieberman D et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology. 2008;125:1100–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:856–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Butterfly LF, Chase MP, Pohl H, et al. Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:343–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rex DK, Overhiser AJ, Chen SC, et al. Estimation of impact of American College of Radiology recommendations on CT colonography reporting for resection of high-risk adenoma findings. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:149–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kessler WR, Imperiale TF, Klein RW, et al. A quantitative assessment of the risks and cost savings of forgoing histologic examination of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy. 2011;43((8):683–91. Cross sectional analysis demonstrating the potential cost savings of a resect and discard strategy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M, et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(3):419–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kobayashi Y, Hayashino Y, Jackson JL, et al. Diagnostic performance of chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging for colonic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(1):18–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. McGill SK, Evangelou E, Loannidis JP, et al. Narrow band imaging to differentiate neoplastic and non-neoplastic colorectal polyps in real time: a meta-analysis of diagnostic operating characteristics. Gut. 2013;62((2)):1704–13. Meta-analysis demonstrating high accuracy of NBI in the diagnosis of colorectal polyps and the potential for real-time endoscopic diagnosis with NBI.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wanders LK, East JE, Uitentuis SE, et al. Diagnostic performance of narrowed spectrum endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging, and confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(13)):1337–47. Meta-analysis demonstrating good sensitivity and a fair negative predictive value for NBI in the evaluation of colonic polyps.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Wu L, Li Y, Li Z, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of narrow-band imaging for the differentiation of neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(1):3–11. Meta-analysis demonstrating high diagnostic precision of NBI for colorectal neoplastic polyps.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hewett DG, Kaltenbach T, Sano Y, et al. Validation of a simple classification system for endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal polyps using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:599–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hewett DG, Huffman ME, Rex DK. Leaving distal colorectal hyperplastic polyps in place can be achieved with high accuracy by using narrow-band imaging: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(2):374–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kaltenbach T, Rastogi A, Rouse RV, et al. Resect and discard strategy in real-time colonoscopy using the validated Narrow Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) Classification provides accurate surveillance interval recommendations [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2011. 106 (Suppl 2).

  71. Kaltenbach T, Rastogi A, Rouse RV, et al. The VALID colonoscopy study—results of a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial on real time colorectal polyp diagnosis using narrow band imaging (NBI) [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2012. 75 (Suppl 4).

  72. Pohl H, Bensen S, Berk B, et al. Real time diminutive polyp diagnosis accurately determines colonoscopy surveillance interval in clinical practice [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2012. 75 (Suppl 4).

  73. Wallace, M.B., et al., Accuracy of in vivo colorectal polyp discrimination by using dual-focus high-definition narrow-band imaging colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc, 2014.

  74. Ignjatovic A, Thomas-Gibson S, East JE, et al. Development and validation of a training module on the use of narrow-band imaging in differentiation of small adenomas from hyperplastic colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(1):128–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Neumann H, Vieth M, Fry LC, et al. Learning curve of virtual chromoendoscopy for the prediction of hyperplastic and adenomatous colorectal lesions: a prospective 2-center study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(1):115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Raghavendra M, Hewett DG, Rex DK. Differentiating adenomas from hyperplastic colorectal polyps: narrow-band imaging can be learned in 20 min. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(3):572–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Paggi S, Rondonotti E, Amato A, et al. Resect and discard strategy in clinical practice: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy. 2012;44(10):899–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ladabaum U, Fioritto A, Mitani A, et al. Real-time optical biopsy of colon polyps with narrow band imaging in community practice does not yet meet key thresholds for clinical decisions. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(1):81–91. Prospective study demonstrating that resect and discard does not yet meet PIVI standards when applied to community practice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Hazewinkel Y, de Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop EM, et al. Prevalence of serrated polyps and association with synchronous advanced neoplasia in screening colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014;46(3):219–24. Analysis of 1426 patients who underwent screening colonoscopy. Serrated polyps were associated with synchronous advanced neoplasms.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Kahi CJ, Li X, Eckert GJ, et al. High colonoscopic prevalence of proximal colon serrated polyps in average-risk men and women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(3):515–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Amilcar L. Morales, John P. Magulick, Craig Womeldorph, and Patrick E. Young declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Disclaimers

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gastroenterology Service, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20889, USA

    Amilcar L. Morales & Patrick E. Young

  2. Gastroenterology Service, San Antonio Military Medical Center, 3851 Roger Brooke Drive, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX, 78234, USA

    John P. Magulick & Craig Womeldorph

  3. Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20889, USA

    Patrick E. Young

Authors
  1. Amilcar L. Morales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John P. Magulick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Craig Womeldorph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick E. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick E. Young.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Prevention and Early Detection

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morales, A.L., Magulick, J.P., Womeldorph, C. et al. Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Future Directions. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 11, 1–9 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-014-0257-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-014-0257-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation