Table 1 Current CRC screening methods
From: Methods and novel technology for microRNA quantification in colorectal cancer screening
Tool | Blood or stool | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Advantages | Limitations | Citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colonoscopy | Invasive | 75–93 | 100 | • Well validated and widely accepted • High sensitivity and specificity | • Requires expertise to perform/interpret • Invasive • Low compliance • Risk of intestinal perforation and bleeding | |
Sigmoidoscopy | Invasive | 77–84 | 84 | • Typically does not require sedation • Less extensive bowel preparation | • Requires expertise to perform/interpret • Invasive • Risk of intestinal perforation and bleeding • Not as thorough as colonoscopy | |
Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) | Stool | 50 | 91–98 | • Inexpensive • Can be performed at home | • Low sensitivity • Requires repeated testing | |
Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) | Stool | 93 | 90 | • Inexpensive • Can be performed at home • High sensitivity | • Not as sensitive to colorectal neoplasia | |
Cologuard | Stool | 92–98 | 90 | • Inexpensive • Can be performed at home | • Not as sensitive to colorectal neoplasia | |
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) | Blood | 74–80 | 70–95 | • Easy to perform | • Cannot detect early stage CRC • No standardized cutoff values | |
Epi proColon | Blood | 66–68 | 91 | • Easy to perform | • Low sensitivity |