Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Pathologist
  • Explore Pathology

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Research & Innovations
    • Product Profiles

    Featured Topics

    • Molecular Pathology
    • Infectious Disease
    • Digital Pathology

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Subspecialties
    • Oncology
    • Histology
    • Cytology
    • Hematology
    • Endocrinology
    • Neurology
    • Microbiology & Immunology
    • Forensics
    • Pathologists' Assistants
  • Training & Education

    Career Development

    • Professional Development
    • Career Pathways
    • Workforce Trends

    Educational Resources

    • Guidelines & Recommendations
    • App Notes

    Events

    • Webinars
    • Live Events
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Profiles & Community

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Pathologist / Issues / 2023 / Apr / Patients Don’t Want Colonoscopies – Let’s Give Them Something Better
Hematology Screening and monitoring Liquid biopsy Hematology Oncology Opinion and Personal Narratives

Patients Don’t Want Colonoscopies – Let’s Give Them Something Better

The life-saving potential of alternative screening methods for colorectal cancer

By Craig Eagle 04/14/2023 Opinion 2 min read

Share

The recent Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial – a randomized study on the effects of colonoscopy screening for risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and related death – offers some illuminating results.

The study confirms colonoscopy screening as an effective means of detecting cancer early. For patients screened, the risk of death from CRC was reduced by 50 percent (1). However, the study also showed that only 42 percent of patients referred for a colonoscopy actually went through with the screening.

The NordICC trial sheds new light on an unfortunate but familiar reality – only two in three eligible individuals in the US are being screened for CRC in line with medical guidelines. The study points to stool-based testing as an alternative, but recent research published in The Lancet shows a compliance rate of only 55 percent for stool-based screening (2).

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable has set a goal to screen 80 percent of eligible US individuals. But there are challenges associated with currently available screening methods – they can be inconvenient and difficult to access and there is discomfort with stool-based tests. Developing accessible testing to screen for colorectal cancer is therefore crucial. And I believe blood testing is one option that can overcome current barriers.

To date, most of the criticism of blood-based screening has focused on its sensitivity – or lack thereof. And I agree that sensitivity is crucial; delayed detection of cancer at this early stage can lead to sometimes debilitating chemotherapy side effects and higher risk of death. High sensitivity in screening tests also helps minimize patient anxiety about false negative results. In recent studies, blood-based CRC screening tests have demonstrated sensitivity above 80 percent with specificity of 90 percent (3). These figures are consistent with other screening methods. The high specificity (low false positive rate) can help minimize unnecessary diagnostic procedures, which preserves limited lab and healthcare resources and optimizes patient care and safety.

In terms of improving patient outcomes and public health, the best screening test is the one that the patient actually completes. Blood-based testing has been shown to significantly enhance adherence to CRC screening in a real-world setting. Looking at our internal data, of the initial 8,000 individuals whose physician ordered one blood-based CRC screening test during a routine visit, 90 percent completed the test.

If nothing else, the NordICC trial demonstrates that we need more alternatives to colonoscopy if we want to screen average-risk populations for CRC effectively. Current screening rates lag well below the US target, in part because the available methods are perceived as unpleasant, time-consuming, and difficult to complete. Blood tests, however, offer a convenient and effective alternative for patients – with the potential to increase screening rates and save more lives.

Newsletters

Receive the latest pathology news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. M Bretthauer et al., “Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death,” N Engl J Med, 387, 1547 (2022). PMID: 36214590.
  2. A Forsberg et al., “Once-only colonoscopy or two rounds of faecal immunochemical testing 2 years apart for colorectal cancer screening (SCREESCO): preliminary report of a randomised controlled trial,” Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 6, 513 (2022). PMID: 35298893.
  3. Guardant Health, “Guardant Health announces positive results from pivotal ECLIPSE study evaluating a blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer” (2022). Available at: http://bit.ly/3zVPVeQ.

About the Author(s)

Craig Eagle

Chief Medical Officer at Guardant Health, California, United States.

More Articles by Craig Eagle

Explore More in Pathology

Dive deeper into the world of pathology. Explore the latest articles, case studies, expert insights, and groundbreaking research.

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

Flexible Solutions With FlexVUE
Screening and monitoring
Flexible Solutions With FlexVUE

December 29, 2021

1 min read

Quickly customize your immune panels with Ultivue’s new innovation

What’s New in Infectious Disease? (December 2021)
Screening and monitoring
What’s New in Infectious Disease?

December 23, 2021

1 min read

The latest research and news on COVID-19 and the infectious disease landscape

A Pig In a Poke
Screening and monitoring
A Pig In a Poke

October 21, 2016

1 min read

When importing livestock for food or breeding, European countries may inadvertently open their borders to superbugs as well

Sneaky Superbugs
Screening and monitoring
Sneaky Superbugs

October 21, 2016

1 min read

Norway’s strict LA-MRSA transmission measures prevent the import of almost all live pigs – but the bacteria have found a new way in

False

The Pathologist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.