Back

Using colorectal cancer screening evidence to stratify for personal risk among those with a family history of colorectal cancer: a 42-year cohort study

King, D. W.; King, P. E.; Blanchard, M. W.; Ning, N. W.; King, S. K.; Grimm, M. C.; Ha, T.; Eagar, K.

2026-06-08 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.06.04.26354891 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective To determine if it is possible to assess individual patient risk of the development of colorectal cancer (CRC) in people in high-risk groups due to their family history. Design/Method Retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for a colonoscopy. 2,478 consecutive patients were referred to a single colorectal surgical practice in Sydney, Australia between 1977 and 2018 for a colonoscopy because of a family history of CRC. Of these, 1,963 have been followed for more than 10 years and are the subject of this paper. Histopathological findings categorised as normal (N), non-advanced adenoma (NAA) or advanced neoplasia (AN) with AN proven to be the precursor to CRC. Intervention Colonoscopic screening on the basis of contemporary practice to 2006 and subsequently according to Australian National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines. Results Participants with normal or low-risk findings in the first decade remain at lower risk of CRC for 30 years from the commencement of screening. Conclusion It is possible to stratify individual patients in a high relative risk cohort into those with high or low personal risk of CRC based on colonoscopic findings in the first 10 years of surveillance. Those with no AN in the first ten years have a lower 30-year risk of developing AN than the general community. This offers the possibility of structuring surveillance programs around individual risk rather than group risk, lessening the need for multiple surveillance colonoscopies in the majority of such patients and improving the cost effectiveness of CRC screening at the population level.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
22.8%
2
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
3
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
6
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
7
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
8
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
9
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
10
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.7%
12
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
14
Gut
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
15
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
16
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
17
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.9%
19
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
22
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
26
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
28
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
29
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%