Melina A. McCabe, Anthony J. Mauro, Robert E. Schoen
{"title":"Novel colorectal cancer screening methods — opportunities and challenges","authors":"Melina A. McCabe, Anthony J. Mauro, Robert E. Schoen","doi":"10.1038/s41571-025-01037-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death and the third most common incident cancer. CRC begins as adenomatous or serrated polyps, and in particular as advanced precursor lesions (APLs), which have the potential to progress into invasive cancers. Screening for CRC facilitates early detection and can identify cancers more amenable to cure, and can also detect and remove precursor lesions, thus also preventing CRC. Colonoscopy is the mainstay of screening in the USA and has the distinct advantage of enabling both detection and removal of precursors lesions. However, colonoscopy is burdensome, expensive and invasive, and often has negative findings. Non-invasive tests, such as testing stool samples for biomarkers of risk, have the potential to identify individuals who are more likely to benefit from colonoscopy. From a public health perspective, improving compliance with screening remains a priority. Technological innovations, including the emergence of new markers to improve stool testing and the development of blood tests that examine cell-free DNA have the potential to improve screening uptake and effectiveness. The trade-off between uptake of screening testing, detection of cancer and important precursor lesions such as APLs, and costs make for a complex calculus. In this Review, we describe the current state of CRC screening and evaluate the risks and benefits of new developments in screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":19079,"journal":{"name":"Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":81.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-025-01037-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death and the third most common incident cancer. CRC begins as adenomatous or serrated polyps, and in particular as advanced precursor lesions (APLs), which have the potential to progress into invasive cancers. Screening for CRC facilitates early detection and can identify cancers more amenable to cure, and can also detect and remove precursor lesions, thus also preventing CRC. Colonoscopy is the mainstay of screening in the USA and has the distinct advantage of enabling both detection and removal of precursors lesions. However, colonoscopy is burdensome, expensive and invasive, and often has negative findings. Non-invasive tests, such as testing stool samples for biomarkers of risk, have the potential to identify individuals who are more likely to benefit from colonoscopy. From a public health perspective, improving compliance with screening remains a priority. Technological innovations, including the emergence of new markers to improve stool testing and the development of blood tests that examine cell-free DNA have the potential to improve screening uptake and effectiveness. The trade-off between uptake of screening testing, detection of cancer and important precursor lesions such as APLs, and costs make for a complex calculus. In this Review, we describe the current state of CRC screening and evaluate the risks and benefits of new developments in screening.
期刊介绍:
Nature Reviews publishes clinical content authored by internationally renowned clinical academics and researchers, catering to readers in the medical sciences at postgraduate levels and beyond. Although targeted at practicing doctors, researchers, and academics within specific specialties, the aim is to ensure accessibility for readers across various medical disciplines. The journal features in-depth Reviews offering authoritative and current information, contextualizing topics within the history and development of a field. Perspectives, News & Views articles, and the Research Highlights section provide topical discussions, opinions, and filtered primary research from diverse medical journals.