Search Results

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer death in men and women in the United States. The main goals of screening are to prevent carcinogenesis (via adenoma detection and removal) and detect cancer at an early, curable stage. CRC mortality is steadily dropping in the United States, partly because of greater screening utilization. However, nearly 1 in 3 average-risk people are not up to date with standard CRC screening recommendations. This review surveys a wide range of CRC biomarkers in various stages of development, which may offer attractive risk stratification tools; a few have reached the commercial stage. If widely accepted, these tools may contribute to shift CRC screening practices away from 1-step colonoscopy to a 2-step risk stratification process of predictive biomarker measurements followed by colonoscopy for lower-risk patients with a positive result. Such strategies could potentially increase the rate of CRC screening.

This is a focused update highlighting the most current NCCN Guidelines for diagnosis and management of Lynch syndrome. Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer, usually resulting from a germline mutation in 1 of 4 DNA mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2), or deletions in the EPCAM promoter. Patients with Lynch syndrome are at an increased lifetime risk, compared with the general population, for colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and other cancers, including of the stomach and ovary. As of 2016, the panel recommends screening all patients with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome and provides recommendations for surveillance for early detection and prevention of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers.

Mortality from colorectal cancer can be reduced by early diagnosis and by cancer prevention through polypectomy. These NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening describe various colorectal screening modalities and recommended screening schedules for patients at average or increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for the management of patients with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes, including Lynch syndrome. Screening approaches for Lynch syndrome are also described.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colorectal Cancer Screening provide recommendations for selecting individuals for colorectal cancer screening, and for evaluation and follow-up of colon polyps. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Colorectal Cancer Screening panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year were the state of evidence for CT colonography and stool DNA testing, bowel preparation procedures for colonoscopy, and guidelines for patients with a positive family history of colorectal cancer.

Background: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. Patients and Methods: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Results: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. Conclusions: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.