ReviewFamilial cancer2026
Colorectal cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome: quality standards, emerging technology and complementary strategies.
Review in Familial cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Lynch syndrome is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome, and colonoscopy remains the cornerstone of prevention. However, surveillance is limited by missed lesions, variable procedural quality, accelerated neoplastic progression, and the continued occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers. This review examines gene-specific differences in colorectal cancer and adenoma risk, quality standards for surveillance colonoscopy, emerging artificial intelligence technologies, and complementary non-endoscopic strategies. Contemporary studies conducted in expert settings have reported higher adenoma detection rates, reflecting improvements in colonoscopy quality. At the same time, randomized trials have shown no clear additional benefit from computer-aided detection when added to high-quality colonoscopy. Among complementary strategies, fecal immunochemical testing may support prioritization and risk stratification, although its optimal threshold, testing interval, and safety for postponing colonoscopy remain uncertain. In parallel, blood-based biomarkers for cancer prediction remain exploratory. Future progress will depend on wider implementation of quality-assured surveillance and prospective validation of adjunctive tools that can safely guide colonoscopy timing and reduce the occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.