Ait Ouakrim, D. et al. Tendencies in colorectal most cancers mortality in Europe: retrospective evaluation of the WHO mortality database. BMJ 351, h4970 (2015).
Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention. United States Most cancers Statistics: Knowledge Visualizations https://gis.cdc.gov/Most cancers/USCS/DataViz.html (2015).
Most cancers Analysis UK. Bowel Most cancers Statistics https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer#heading-One (2017).
Public Well being England: Nationwide Most cancers Intelligence Community. Routes to analysis 2006–2016 12 months breakdown http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/routes_to_diagnosis (2018).
Shenbagaraj, L. et al. Endoscopy in 2017: a nationwide survey of apply within the UK. Frontline Gastroenterol. 10, 7–15 (2019).
Joseph, D. A. et al. Colorectal most cancers screening: estimated future colonoscopy want and present quantity and capability. Most cancers 122, 2479–2486 (2016).
Kaur A. Bowel Most cancers UK. Diagnosing bowel most cancers early – a service at breaking level https://www.bowelcanceruk.org.uk/news-and-blogs/campaigns-and-policy-blog/diagnosing-bowel-cancer-early-a-service-at-breaking-point/ (2019).
Centre for Workforce Intelligence. Securing the Future Workforce Provide: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Workforce Assessment (CFWI, 2017).
Gavin, D. R. et al. The nationwide colonoscopy audit: a nationwide evaluation of the standard and security of colonoscopy within the UK. Intestine 62, 242–249 (2013).
Hassan, C. et al. Submit-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 45, 842–851 (2013).
Lieberman, D. A. et al. Pointers for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus replace by the US multi-society activity pressure on colorectal most cancers. Gastroenterology 143, 844–857 (2012).
Rutter, M. D. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Affiliation of Coloproctology of Nice Britain and Eire/Public Well being England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal most cancers resection surveillance pointers. Intestine 69, 201–223 (2020).
Vulliamy, P., McCluney, S., Raouf, S. & Banerjee, S. Tendencies in pressing referrals for suspected colorectal most cancers: a rise in amount, however not in high quality. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 98, 564–567 (2016).
Ford, A. C. et al. Diagnostic utility of alarm options for colorectal most cancers: systematic evaluation and meta-analysis. Intestine 57, 1545–1552 (2008).
Nationwide Institute of Well being and Care Excellence. Suspected Most cancers: Recognition and Referral. NICE Steering (NG12) (NICE, 2017).
Most cancers Council Australia. Medical apply pointers for the prevention, early detection and administration of colorectal most cancers. https://wiki.most cancers.org.au/australia/Pointers:Colorectal_cancer (2018).
Han, J. et al. Stopping the unfold of COVID-19 in digestive endoscopy through the resuming interval: meticulous execution of screening procedures. Gastrointest. Endosc https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.3855 (2020).
Pernas, S. & Tolaney, S. M. HER2-positive breast most cancers: new therapeutic frontiers and overcoming resistance. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 11, 1758835919833519 (2019).
Hippisley-Cox, J. et al. Predicting cardiovascular danger in England and Wales: potential derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 336, 1475–1482 (2008).
Usher-Smith, J. A., Walter, F. M., Emery, J. D., Win, A. Ok. & Griffin, S. J. Threat prediction fashions for colorectal most cancers: a scientific evaluation. Most cancers Prev. Res. 9, 13–26 (2016).
Peng, L., Weigl, Ok., Boakye, D. & Brenner, H. Threat scores for predicting superior colorectal neoplasia within the average-risk inhabitants: a scientific evaluation and meta-analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 113, 1788–1800 (2018).
Walker, J. G., Licqurish, S., Chiang, P. P. C., Pirotta, M. & Emery, J. D. Most cancers danger evaluation instruments in major care: a scientific evaluation of randomized managed trials. Ann. Fam. Med. 13, 480–489 (2015).
Schroy, P. C. et al. Assist-assisted choice making and colorectal most cancers screening: a randomized managed trial. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43, 573–583 (2012).
Gill, M. D. et al. Comparability of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers within the Bowel Most cancers Screening Programme. Br. J. Most cancers 107, 417–421 (2012).
Neilson, L. et al. Affected person expertise of gastrointestinal endoscopy: informing the event of the Newcastle ENDOPREMTM. Frontline Gastroenterol. 11, 209–217 (2020).
Warren, J. L. et al. Hostile occasions after outpatient colonoscopy within the Medicare inhabitants. Ann. Intern. Med. 150, 849–857 (2009).
Gatto, N. M. et al. Threat of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based examine. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 95, 230–236 (2003).
Chiu, P. W. Y. et al. Observe of endoscopy throughout COVID-19 pandemic: place statements of the Asian Pacific society for digestive endoscopy (APSDE-COVID statements). Intestine https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321185 (2020).
Gralnek, I. M. et al. ESGE and ESGENA place assertion on gastrointestinal endoscopy and the COVID-19 pandemic. Endoscopy https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1155-6229 (2020).
Maurice, J. et al. Inexperienced endoscopy: a name for sustainability within the midst of COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 5, 636–638 (2020).
Bowles, C. J. A. et al. A potential examine of colonoscopy apply within the UK at this time: are we adequately ready for nationwide colorectal most cancers screening tomorrow? Intestine 53, 277–283 (2004).
Williams, T. G. S., Cubiella, J., Griffin, S. J., Walter, F. M. & Usher-Smith, J. A. Threat prediction fashions for colorectal most cancers in folks with signs: a scientific evaluation. BMC Gastroenterol. 16, 63 (2016).
Ma, G. Ok. & Ladabaum, U. Personalizing colorectal most cancers screening: a scientific evaluation of fashions to foretell danger of colorectal neoplasia. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 12, 1624–1634 (2014).
Smith, T. et al. Comparability of prognostic fashions to foretell the prevalence of colorectal most cancers in asymptomatic people: a scientific literature evaluation and exterior validation within the EPIC and UK Biobank potential cohort research. Intestine 68, 672–683 (2019).
Esposito, Ok. et al. Colorectal most cancers affiliation with metabolic syndrome and its parts: a scientific evaluation with meta-analysis. Endocrine 44, 634–647 (2013).
Lee, J. Ok., Liles, E. G., Bent, S., Levin, T. R. & Corley, D. A. Accuracy of fecal immunochemical exams for colorectal most cancers: systematic evaluation and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 160, 171 (2014).
Westwood, M. et al. Faecal immunochemical exams (FIT) may also help to rule out colorectal most cancers in sufferers presenting in major care with decrease stomach signs: a scientific evaluation performed to tell new NICE DG30 diagnostic steering. BMC Med. 15, 189 (2017).
Selby, Ok. et al. Impact of intercourse, age, and positivity threshold on fecal immunochemical take a look at accuracy: a scientific evaluation and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 157, 1494–1505 (2019).
Nicholson, B. D. et al. Faecal immunochemical testing for adults with signs of colorectal most cancers attending English major care: a retrospective cohort examine of 14487 consecutive take a look at requests. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15969 (2020).
Senore, C. et al. Efficiency of colorectal most cancers screening within the European Union Member States: information from the second European screening report. Intestine 68, 1232–1244 (2019).
Selby, Ok. et al. Affect of various quantitative fecal immunochemical take a look at positivity thresholds on colorectal most cancers detection: a community-based cohort examine. Ann. Intern. Med. 169, 439–447 (2018).
Libby, G. et al. Occult blood in faeces is related to all-cause and non-colorectal most cancers mortality. Intestine 67, 2116–2123 (2018).
Widlak, M. M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of faecal biomarkers in detecting colorectal most cancers and adenoma in symptomatic sufferers. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 45, 354–363 (2017).
Imperiale, T. F. et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 1287–1297 (2014).
Senore, C. & Segnan, N. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 184–188 (2014).
Regulation, P. J. et al. Affiliation analyses establish 31 new danger loci for colorectal most cancers susceptibility. Nat. Commun. 10, 2154 (2019).
Sugrue, L. P. & Desikan, R. S. What are polygenic scores and why are they essential? JAMA 321, 1820–1821 (2019).
Xin, J. et al. Evaluating the impact of a number of genetic danger rating fashions on colorectal most cancers danger prediction. Gene 673, 174–180 (2018).
Iwasaki, M. et al. Inclusion of a genetic danger rating right into a validated danger prediction mannequin for colorectal most cancers in Japanese males improves efficiency. Most cancers Prev. Res. 10, 535–541 (2017).
Weigl, Ok. et al. Strongly enhanced colorectal most cancers danger stratification by combining household historical past and genetic danger rating. Clin. Epidemiol. 10, 143–152 (2018).
Smith, T., Gunter, M. J., Tzoulaki, I. & Muller, D. C. The added worth of genetic data in colorectal most cancers danger prediction fashions: improvement and analysis within the UK Biobank potential cohort examine. Br. J. Most cancers 119, 1036–1039 (2018).
Archambault, A. N. et al. Cumulative burden of colorectal cancer-associated genetic variants is extra strongly related to early-onset vs late-onset most cancers. Gastroenterology 158, 1274–1286 (2020).
Wong, S. H. & Yu, J. Intestine microbiota in colorectal most cancers: mechanisms of motion and medical functions. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 16, 690–704 (2019).
Idrissi Janati, A., Karp, I., Sabri, H. & Emami, E. Is a fusobacterium nucleatum an infection within the colon a danger issue for colorectal most cancers?: a scientific evaluation and meta-analysis protocol. Syst. Rev. 8, 114 (2019).
Shang, F.-M. & Liu, H.-L. Fusobacterium nucleatum and colorectal most cancers: a evaluation. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 10, 71–81 (2018).
Bond, A. et al. Unstable natural compounds emitted from faeces as a biomarker for colorectal most cancers. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 49, 1005–1012 (2019).
Widlak, M. M. et al. Threat stratification of symptomatic sufferers suspected of colorectal most cancers utilizing faecal and urinary markers. Colorectal Dis. 20, O335–O342 (2018).
Arasaradnam, R. P. et al. Detection of colorectal most cancers (CRC) by urinary unstable natural compound evaluation. PLoS ONE 9, e108750 (2014).
van der Sommen, F. et al. Machine studying in GI endoscopy: sensible steering in how one can interpret a novel subject. Intestine https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320466 (2020).
Schreuders, E. H. et al. Colorectal most cancers screening: a worldwide overview of current programmes. Intestine 64, 1637–1649 (2015).
Saftoiu, A. et al. Function of gastrointestinal endoscopy within the screening of digestive tract cancers in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) place assertion. Endoscopy 52, 293–304 (2020).
Cooper, J. A. et al. Threat-adjusted colorectal most cancers screening utilizing the FIT and routine screening information: improvement of a danger prediction mannequin. Br. J. Most cancers 118, 285–293 (2018).
Stegeman, I. et al. Combining danger elements with faecal immunochemical take a look at final result for choosing CRC screenees for colonoscopy. Intestine 63, 466–471 (2014).
van de Veerdonk, W., Hoeck, S., Peeters, M. & Van Hal, G. In the direction of risk-stratified colorectal most cancers screening. Including danger elements to the fecal immunochemical take a look at: proof, evolution and expectations. Prev. Med. 126, 105746 (2019).
Herrero, J.-M., Vega, P., Salve, M., Bujanda, L. & Cubiella, J. Symptom or faecal immunochemical take a look at primarily based referral standards for colorectal most cancers detection in symptomatic sufferers: a diagnostic exams examine. BMC Gastroenterol. 18, 155 (2018).
Cubiella, J. et al. Improvement and exterior validation of a faecal immunochemical test-based prediction mannequin for colorectal most cancers detection in symptomatic sufferers. BMC Med. 14, 128 (2016).
Cubiella, J. et al. The fecal hemoglobin focus, age and intercourse take a look at rating: improvement and exterior validation of a easy prediction instrument for colorectal most cancers detection in symptomatic sufferers. Int. J. Most cancers 140, 2201–2211 (2017).
Marshall, T. et al. The diagnostic efficiency of scoring techniques to establish symptomatic colorectal most cancers in comparison with present referral steering. Intestine 60, 1242–1248 (2011).
Hippisley-Cox, J. & Coupland, C. Figuring out sufferers with suspected colorectal most cancers in major care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 62, e29–e37 (2012).
Adelstein, B.-A. et al. Who wants colonoscopy to establish colorectal most cancers? Bowel signs don’t add considerably to age and different medical historical past. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 32, 270–281 (2010).
Adelstein, B.-A., Macaskill, P., Chan, S. F., Katelaris, P. H. & Irwig, L. Most bowel most cancers signs don’t point out colorectal most cancers and polyps: a scientific evaluation. BMC Gastroenterol. 11, 65 (2011).
Ladabaum, U. & Schoen, R. E. Submit-polypectomy surveillance that will please goldilocks–not an excessive amount of, not too little, however good. Gastroenterology 150, 791–796 (2016).
Winawer, S. J. & Zauber, A. G. Can post-polypectomy surveillance be much less intensive? Lancet Oncol. 18, 707–709 (2017).
Rees, C. J. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy — establishing the important thing unanswered analysis questions inside gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 48, 884–891 (2016).
Cross, A. J. et al. Lengthy-term colorectal most cancers incidence after adenoma removing and the results of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort examine. Intestine 69, 1645–1658 (2020).
Cross, A. J. et al. Faecal immunochemical exams (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness examine. Intestine 68, 1642–1652 (2019).
Tune, M., Chan, A. T. & Solar, J. Affect of intestine microbiome, weight-reduction plan, and atmosphere on danger of colorectal most cancers. Gastroenterology 158, 322–340 (2020).
Terhaar sive Droste, J. et al. Faecal immunochemical take a look at accuracy in sufferers referred for surveillance colonoscopy: a multi-centre cohort examine. BMC Gastroenterol. 12, 94 (2012).
Keum, N. N. & Giovannucci, E. World burden of colorectal most cancers: rising tendencies, danger elements and prevention methods. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 16, 713–732 (2019).
Cuzick, Ok. et al. Estimates of advantages and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin within the normal inhabitants. Ann. Oncol. 26, 47–57 (2015).
Drew, D. A., Cao, Y. & Chan, A. T. Aspirin and colorectal most cancers: the promise of precision chemoprevention. Nat. Rev. Most cancers 16, 173–189 (2016).
Nationwide Institute of Well being and Care Excellence. Supply each day aspirin to these with inherited genetic situation to scale back the danger of colorectal most cancers https://www.good.org.uk/information/article/offer-daily-aspirin-to-those-with-inherited-genetic-condition-to-reduce-the-risk-of-colorectal-cancer (2019).
US Preventative Providers Activity Power. Aspirin use to stop heart problems and colorectal most cancers: preventive treatment https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Web page/Doc/UpdateSummaryFinal/aspirin-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-and-cancer (2016).
Hull, M. A. et al. Eicosapentaenoic acid and aspirin, alone and together, for the prevention of colorectal adenomas (seAFOod Polyp Prevention trial): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2×2 factorial trial. Lancet 392, 2583–2594 (2018).
Rothwell, P. M. et al. Results of aspirin on dangers of vascular occasions and most cancers in accordance with body weight and dose: evaluation of particular person affected person information from randomised trials. Lancet 392, 387–399 (2018).
Ricciardiello, L., Ahnen, D. J. & Lynch, P. M. Chemoprevention of hereditary colon cancers: time for brand spanking new methods. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 13, 352–361 (2016).
Lega, I. C. & Lipscombe, L. L. Assessment: diabetes, weight problems and cancer- pathophysiology and medical implications. Endocr. Rev. 41, 33–52 (2020).
Grant, S. W., Collins, G. S. & Nashef, S. A. M. Statistical primer: growing and validating a danger prediction mannequin. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 54, 203–208 (2018).
Collins, G. S. & Moons, Ok. G. M. Evaluating danger prediction fashions. BMJ 344, e3186 (2012).
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G. & Moons, Ok. G. M. Clear reporting of a multivariable prediction mannequin for particular person prognosis or analysis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD assertion. BMJ 350, g7594 (2015).
Kappen, T. H. et al. Evaluating the affect of prediction fashions: classes realized, challenges, and suggestions. Diagnostic Progn. Res. 2, 11 (2018).
Chiang, P. P.-C., Look, D., Walker, J., Walter, F. M. & Emery, J. D. Implementing a QCancer danger instrument into normal apply consultations: an exploratory examine utilizing simulated consultations with Australian normal practitioners. Br. J. Most cancers 112, S77–S83 (2015).
Walker, J. G. et al. The CRISP colorectal most cancers danger prediction instrument: an exploratory examine utilizing simulated consultations in Australian major care. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 17, 13 (2017).
French, D. P. et al. Psychological affect of offering ladies with personalised 10-year breast most cancers danger estimates. Br. J. Most cancers 118, 1648–1657 (2018).
Nartowt, B. J. et al. Scoring colorectal most cancers danger with a synthetic neural community primarily based on self-reportable private well being information. PLoS ONE 14, e0221421 (2019).
Bach, S. et al. Circulating tumor DNA evaluation: medical implications for colorectal most cancers sufferers. A scientific evaluation. JNCI Most cancers Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkz042 (2019).
Wen, J., Xu, Q. & Yuan, Y. Single nucleotide polymorphisms and sporadic colorectal most cancers susceptibility: a subject synopsis and meta-analysis. Most cancers Cell Int. 18, 155 (2018).
Turvill, J. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 1 or two faecal haemoglobin and calprotectin measurements in sufferers with suspected colorectal most cancers. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 53, 1526–1534 (2018).
Lin, S.-H. et al. The somatic mutation panorama of premalignant colorectal adenoma. Intestine 67, 1299–1305 (2018).
Saus, E. et al. Microbiome and colorectal most cancers: roles in carcinogenesis and medical potential. Mol. Asp. Med. 69, 93–106 (2019).
Dahmus, J. D., Kotler, D. L., Kastenberg, D. M. & Kistler, C. A. The intestine microbiome and colorectal most cancers: a evaluation of bacterial pathogenesis. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 9, 769–777 (2018).
Markar, S. R. et al. Breath unstable natural compound profiling of colorectal most cancers utilizing chosen ion flow-tube mass spectrometry. Ann. Surg. 269, 903–910 (2019).
