Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37737817›Full record

GuidelineGastroenterology2023

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review.

Rachel B Issaka, Andrew T Chan, Samir Gupta

Open access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Second-generation capsule endoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps: An updated systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of prospective studies.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. European Cancer Prevention Organization on cancer screening: an expert panel position paper.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Emerging trends in the global burden of colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Unmasking hidden trends: subsite-specific mortality patterns in colorectal and anal cancers in Spain, 1999-2023.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel B IssakaPublic Health Sciences and Clinical Research Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: rissaka@fredhutch.org.
Andrew T ChanClinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Samir GuptaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California; Section of Gastroenterology, Jennifer Moreno Department of Medical Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, California.
Harvard University · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Developing an intervention to improve follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test results in a safety-net population using a mixed methods approachK08CA241296 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ISSAKA, RACHEL B. · 2019 to 2023
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA241296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

descriptionSince the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

methodsThis Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Indexed as

Colonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAge FactorsGastroenterologyHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesColorectal CancerCRCFecal Immunochemical TestFirst-Degree RelativeFITSecond-Degree RelativeThird-Degree Relative

Identifiers

PMID37737817
PMCPMC10591903
OpenAlexW4386928663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.