Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Colorectal Cancer Screening: a North American Point of View

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

Abstract

Worldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in males and second in females, with an estimated 1.4 million cases and 693,900 deaths in 2012. The current screening modalities utilized in the USA are examined in this review, along with current colonoscopy quality indicators. The contribution of CRC screening to the rising cost of health care in the USA has warranted recent public interest and has overall been demonstrated to be cost-effective. In addition, numerous barriers to screening are analyzed along with models for risk stratifying CRC risk at both an individual and population level. Recently, recognized risk stratification models from the Netherlands and Asia are compared with those developed in the USA, and the applicability of each to the US population is evaluated. Ultimately, this review presents the challenges and potential solutions in moving forward in the realm of CRC screening.

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. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr.

  2. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Kliewer EV, Mahmud SM, Bernstein CN. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:1128–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkins WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9726):1624–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Altenhofen L, Haug U. Protection form right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(2):89–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Urbach DR, Rabeneck L. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Auge JM, Pellise M, Escudero JM, et al. Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia according to fecal hemoglobin concentration in a colorectal cancer screening program. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:628–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE, Rex DK. Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(7):770–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lieberman D. Progress and challenges in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(6):2115–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang DX, Gross CP, Soulos PR, Yu JB. Estimating the magnitude of colorectal cancers prevented during the era of screening: 1976 to 2009. Cancer. 2014;120(18):2893–901. An evaluation of the true value of colorectal cancer screening.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Young P, Womeldorph C. Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. J Cancer. 2013;4(3):217–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sharaf RN, Ladabaum U. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:120–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Colorectal Cancer Facts and Figures: 2014–2016. American Cancer Society, Inc. Retrieved from: https://www.cancer.org/acs.

  13. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group; US Multi-Society Task Force; American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee, 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 

  14. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Nah Ho M, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopy polypectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(27):1977–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, Sturmer T, Hoffmeister M. Potential for colorectal cancer prevention of sigmoidoscopy versus colonoscopy: population-based case control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(3):494–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Muller AD, Sonnenberg A. Protection by endoscopy against death from colorectal cancer. A case–control study among veterans. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1741–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Elmunzer BJ, Singal AG, Sussman JB, et al. Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(3):700–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, Larkin GN, Rogge JD, Ransohoff DF. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:169–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:162–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(5):434–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scholefield JH, Moss SM, Mangham CM, Whynes DK, Hardcastle JD. Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut. 2012;61:1036–40. Long-term data on a groundbreaking study in the area of colorectal cancer screening.

  22. Aniwan S, Rerknimitr R, Kongkam P, Wisedopas N, Ponuthai Y, Chaithongrat S, et al. A combination of clinical risk stratification and fecal immunochemical test results to prioritize colonoscopy screening in asymptomatic participants. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(3):719–27. An example of an excellent risk stratification model to increase the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hundt S, Haug U, Brenner H. Comparative evaluation if immunohistochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal adenoma detection. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:162–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Park DI, Ryu S, Kim YH, et al. Comparison of guaiac-based and quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood testing in a population at average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2017–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wong MCS, Ching JYL, Chan VCW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a qualitative fecal immunohistochemical test varies with location of neoplasia but not number of specimens. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015.

  26. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998–2005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bjorkman D, Popp J. Measuring the quality of endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63(Suppl):LS1–S2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Faigel D, Pike I, Baron T, et al. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63(Suppl):S2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rex D, Schoenfeld P, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaminski M, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Corley D, Jensen C, Mrks A, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1299801306. This article highlighted the association between low ADR and poor outcomes.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rogal S, Pinsky P, Schoen R. Relationship between detection of adenomas by flexible sigmoidoscopy and interval distal colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:73–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rex D, Johnson D, Anderson J, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes S, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hosokawa O, Shirasaki S, Kaizaki Y, et al. Invasive colorectal cancer detected up to 3 years after a colonoscopy negative for cancer. Endoscopy. 2003;35:506–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Leaper M, Johnston M, Barclay M, et al. Reasons for failure to diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2004;36:499–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee T, Rutter M, Blanks R, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Gut. 2012;61:1050–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen S, Rex D. Variable detection of non-adenomatous polyps by individual endoscopists at colonoscopy ad correlation with adenoma detection. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:704–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rex D. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:33–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee R, Tang R, Muthusamy V, et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Barclay R, Vicari J, Johanson J, et al. Variation in adenoma detection rates and colonoscopic withdrawal times during screening colonoscopy {abstract}. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:AB107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sanchez W, Harewood G, Petersen B. Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1941–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fatima H, Rex D, Rothstein R, et al. Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopies: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:109–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Simmons D, Haregood G, Baron T, et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:965–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lim G, Viney S, Chapman B, et al. A prospective study of endoscopist-blinded colonoscopy withdrawal times and polyp detection rates in a tertiary hospital. N Z Med J. 2012;125:52–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lin O, Kozarek R, Arai A, et al. The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1253–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Johnson D, Barkun A, Coehn L, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1528–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Calderwood A, Jacobson B. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:686–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:482–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Williams J, Le T, Faigel D. Polypectomy rate as a quality measure for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:498–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Williams J, Holub J, Faigel D. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:576–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hilsden R, Rostom A, Dube C, et al. Is polyp detection rate a valid proxy for adenoma detection rate for measuring the technical quality of colonoscopy? Gastroenterology. 2010;138:S57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Francis D, Rodriquez-Correa D, Buchner A, et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:493–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cooper G, Xu F, Barnholtz S, et al. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in Medicare beneficiaries. Cancer. 2012;118:3044–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bressler B, Paszat L, Chen Z, et al. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Robertson D, Lieberman D, Winawer S, et al. Interval cancer after total colonoscopy: results from a pooled analysis of eight studies. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:A-111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pohl H, Robertson D. Colorectal cancer detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:858–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler C, et al. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case–control study. Gut. 2012;61:1576–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Singh H, Nugent Z, Mahmud S, et al. Predictors of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:663–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Limketkai B, Lam-Himlin D, Arnold M, et al. The cutting edge of serrated polyps: a practical guide to approaching and managing serrated colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:360–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Crockett S, Snover D, Ahnen D, Baron J. Sessile serrated adenomas: an evidence-based guide to management. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:11–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tinmouth J, Henry P, Hsieh E, et al. Sessile serrated polyps at screening colonoscopy: have they been under diagnosed? Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1698–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fayad N, Kahi C. Quality measures for colonoscopy: a critical evaluation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:1973–80. This article highlights the strength and weaknesses of current quality indicators.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kahi C, Hewett D, Norton D, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kahi C, Li X, Ecckekrt G, et al. High colonoscopic prevalence of proximal colon serrated polyps in average-risk men and women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:515–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hetzel J, Huang C, Coukos J, et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2656–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey C, et al. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: A meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2011;43:499–505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kahi C, Anderson J, Waxman I, et al. High-definition chromocolonoscopy vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1301–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. De Wijkerslooth T, Stoop E, Bossuyt P, et al. Adenoma detection with cap-assisted colonoscopy versus regular colonoscopoy: a randomized controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61:1426–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Dinesen L, Chua T, Kaffes A. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:604–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Leufkens A, DeMarco D, Rastogi A, et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:480–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gralnek I, Siiersema P, Halpern Z, et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicenter, randomized, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:353–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Gross S, Zamir H, Santo E, et al. A novel balloon-colonoscope for increased polyp/adenoma detection rate: results of a randomized tandem study. Am J Gastroenterol 108:S632–633.

  74. Biecker E, Floer M, Heinecke A, et al. The endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp and adenoma detection: results of a prospective randomized study with 498 patients. Oral presentation at DDW 2014, Chicago, IL.

  75. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use—United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:881–8.

    Google Scholar 

  76. von Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G, Ponti A, Malila N, Arbyn M, et al. Cancer screening in the European Union. Report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening—first report. ISBN 978-92-79-08934-3. European Communities (publ.) Printed in Luxembourg by the services of the European Commission. Lyon: IARC press; 2008.

  77. Guessous I, Dash C, Lapin P, et al. Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators in older persons. Prev Med. 2010;50:3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Bromley E, May F, Federer L, et al. Explaining persistent under-use of colonoscopic cancer screening in African Americans: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2015;71:40–8. A very relevant look at current barriers to screening in populations where colorectal cancer screening is underutilized.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Fidler H, Hartnett A, Cheng Man K, et al. Sex and familiarity of colonoscopists: patient preferences. Endoscopy. 2000;32:481–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Menees S, Inadomi J, Korsnes S, et al. Women patients’ preference for women physicians is a barrier to colon cancer screening. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:219–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Varadarajulu S, Petruff C, Ramsey W. Patient preferences for gender of endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:170–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Denberg T, Kraus H, Soenksen A, et al. Rates of screening colonoscopy are not increased when women are offered a female endoscopist in a health promotion outreach program. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:1014–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Bazargan M, Ani C, Bazargan-Hejazi S, et al. Coloreectal cancer screening among underserved minority population: discrepancy between physicians’ recommended, scheduled, and completed tests. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76:240–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Carcaise-Edinboro P, Bradley C. Influence of patient-provider communication on colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 2008;46:738–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Seeff L, Nadel M, Klabunde C, et al. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer. 2004;100:2093–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Laiyemo A, Adebogun A, Doubeni C, et al. Influence of provider discussion and specific recommendation on colorectal cancer screening uptake among U.S. adults. Prev Med. 2014;67:1–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Inadomi J, Vijan S, Janz N, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:575–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Kushnir VM, Oh YS, Hollander T, et al. Impact of retroflexion vs second forward view examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: a comparison study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(3):415–22. This study has the ability to strongly impact current colonoscopy techniques in order to increase the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Imperiale TF, Monahan PO, Stump TE, et al. Derivation and validation of a scoring system to stratify risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:339–46. This is an example of an excellent system that when implemented, can make current colorectal cancer screening methods more cost-effective.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Stegeman I, Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop EM, et al. Combining risk factors with faecal immunochemical test outcome for selecting CRC screenees for colonoscopy. Gut. 2014;63:466–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Yeoh KG, Ho KY, Chiu HM, et al. The Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score: a validated tool that stratifies the risk for colorectal advanced neoplasia in asymptomatic Asian subjects. Gut. 2011;60:1236–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Weinberg DS, Myers RE, Keenan E, Ruth K, Sifri R, Ziring B, et al. Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(8):527–45. This is an excellent example of an effective risk stratification model that can increase the cost effectiveness of current colorectal cancer screening modalities.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Myers RE, Ruth K, Manne SL, Cocroft J, Sifri R, Ziring B, et al. Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal screening adherence. J Behav Med. 2015.

  94. Baker DW, Brown T, Buchanan DR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med. 2014;174(8):1235–41. This is a current and effective attempt to increase patient adherence to current colorectal cancer screening.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Anderson M. 6 facts about Americans and their smartphones. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science, and Tech; 2015.

  96. Tarkan L. Getting a colonoscopy? There’s an app for that. Fox News Online. 2013. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/20/getting-colonoscopy-there-app-for-that/.

  97. Kavathia N, Berggreen P, Gerkin R. Outcomes of smart phone application assisted bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Digestive Disease Week 2013. This is a very relevant and cutting edge implementation to capture a younger, more technologically advanced patient population in order to increase colorectal cancer screening adherence.

  98. Heitman SJ, Hilsden RJ, Au F, Dowden S, Manns BJ. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11), e1000370.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, San Antonio Military Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, JBSA Fort Sam, Houston, TX, 78234, USA

    Induruwa N. Pathirana & Craig M. Womeldorph

  2. Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA

    Induruwa N. Pathirana, Patrick E. Young & Craig M. Womeldorph

  3. Department of Gastroenterology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20889, USA

    Dustin M. Albert & Patrick E. Young

Authors
  1. Induruwa N. Pathirana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dustin M. Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick E. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Craig M. Womeldorph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Induruwa N. Pathirana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Induruwa N. Pathirana, Dustin M. Albert, Patrick E. Young, and Craig Womeldorph 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 US Government.

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

Pathirana, I.N., Albert, D.M., Young, P.E. et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening: a North American Point of View. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 12, 241–250 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-016-0330-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-016-0330-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation