ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2025
Novel colorectal cancer screening methods - opportunities and challenges.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifunctional hyaluronic acid-modified hollow MnOMaterials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Development of an Interpretable Triage Tool for Colorectal Polyp Risk Stratification Within a Population-Based Screening Program: Machine Learning Approach.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- 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) · 2026Article
- Targeting Tex10 Overcomes Oxaliplatin Resistance by Competitively Disrupting the Non-Canonical BAF Complex in Colorectal Cancer.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- A Targeted Nanozyme for STING Activation Improves BiTEs Therapy Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Suppression LIF with 8-Gingerol blockades colorectal cancer tumorigenesis by reversing M2-type macrophage polarization.Journal of natural medicines · 2026Article
- Establishing the role of the neurotransmitter receptor-related geneTranslational cancer research · 2026Article
- Loss of GGT6 promotes colorectal cancer progression and correlates with poor prognosis: a study based on multi-database mining and functional validation.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Disruption of HSPA8-GEMIN5 interaction suppresses colorectal cancer by impaired splicing-translation coupling-mediated proteostasis imbalance.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2026Article
- Combined intervention ofFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Comparative study of triple intravenous chemotherapy versus dual chemotherapy combined with hepatic arterial infusion in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Health inequalities among people with disabilities: an umbrella review and evidence synthesis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Aptamer-Based Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Detection: Emerging Technologies and Future Directions.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40481325What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.