Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington3Currently with RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2576-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332.
IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.
重要性:结直肠癌(CRC)仍然是美国发病率和死亡率的主要原因。 目的:系统地审查 CRC 筛查的有效性、诊断准确性和危害。 数据来源:从 2008 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 12 月 31 日期间,通过 MEDLINE、PubMed 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库进行了相关研究的搜索,通过 2016 年 2 月 23 日进行了监测。 研究选择:在一般结直肠癌风险的无症状人群中进行的英语研究。 数据提取和综合:两名审查员独立评估文章,并从公平或高质量的研究中提取相关研究数据。进行了随机效应荟萃分析。 主要结果和措施:结直肠癌发病率和死亡率、检测 CRC 或腺瘤的试验准确性以及严重不良事件。 结果:四项评估一次性或两次软性乙状结肠镜检查(n=458002)的实用随机临床试验(RCT)与无筛查相比,CRC 特异性死亡率降低(发病率比,0.73;95%置信区间,0.66-0.82)。五项具有多次两年一次基于愈创木脂的粪便潜血检测的 RCT(n=419966)显示 CRC 特异性死亡率降低(相对风险[RR],0.91;95%置信区间,0.84-0.98,在 19.5 年时 RR,0.78;95%置信区间,0.65-0.93,在 30 年时)。七项关于带有肠道准备的计算机断层结肠造影术(CTC)的研究表明,对 6 毫米及以上的腺瘤进行个人检测的敏感性和特异性与结肠镜检查相当(敏感性从 73%[95%置信区间,58%-84%]到 98%[95%置信区间,91%-100%];特异性从 89%[95%置信区间,84%-93%]到 91%[95%置信区间,88%-93%]);差异和不精确性可能是由于研究设计或 CTC 方案的差异。结肠镜检查检测 6 毫米或更大的腺瘤的敏感性范围为 75%(95%置信区间,63%-84%)至 93%(95%置信区间,88%-96%)。基于单个粪便标本,最常评估的粪便免疫化学检测(FIT)家族具有良好的敏感性(范围,73%-88%)和特异性(范围,90%-96%)。一项研究(n=9989)发现,FIT 加粪便 DNA 检测在检测 CRC 方面比 FIT 单独检测(92%)具有更好的敏感性,但特异性较低(84%)。在无症状人群中,结肠镜检查的严重不良事件包括穿孔(4/10000 例,95%置信区间,10000 例中有 2-5 例)和大出血(8/10000 例,95%置信区间,10000 例中有 5-14 例)。CT 结肠造影术可能会因低剂量电离辐射暴露或识别结外发现而产生危害。 结论和相关性:在一般风险成年人中,结肠镜检查、软性乙状结肠镜检查、CTC 和粪便检测具有不同水平的证据支持其使用、检测癌症和前体病变的能力以及严重不良事件的风险。尽管 CRC 筛查有大量支持证据,但仍需要进一步研究。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-6
Health Technol Assess. 2010-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-1-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Commun Med (Lond). 2025-7-1
BMC Gastroenterol. 2025-3-27
Medicina (Kaunas). 2024-10-5