← Issue №4/ week of Jul 26, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Colorectal, in full.

All 3 Colorectal papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
IBD6Hepatology12Esophagus/Reflux4Pancreas/Biliary2Endoscopy21Motility7Colorectal3Nutrition3
Filter

All 3, in full

most clinically useful first · the 1 the issue led with is ruled in green
Everything here, in one line each3
Colorectal meta analysis · Jul 30, 2026 · J Gastroenterology · IF 5.7

Clinical applications of gut microbiome for non-invasive diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.

Diagnosticmicrobiomebiomarkercolorectal cancercolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayMicrobiome-based stool testing shows promise for improving adenoma detection in CRC screening, particularly for early-stage lesions missed by FIT alone. However, further validation and integration into screening programs are needed before clinical adoption.
What it foundA microbial panel (Fusobacterium nucleatum, Hungatella hathewayi, Christensenella hongkongensis, and m3 gene) demonstrated improved sensitivity for adenoma detection compared to FIT alone, with comparable accuracy for CRC.
ContextCurrent stool-based tests like FIT have limited sensitivity for adenoma detection. This study confirms microbial signatures as viable biomarkers and highlights their potential to enhance early CRC screening.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017

Decision at stakethe potential use of gut microbiome biomarkers for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening

Begin average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 using a patient-centered shared-decision modality choice, colonoscopy every 10 years (preferred) or annual FIT as Tier 1 options, with multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years as Tier 2 alternatives. A positive stool-based test requires diagnostic colonoscopy, and stool tests should not be ordered for patients who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Generally stop at age 75 with individualized decisions for ages 76-85 and no screening beyond 85.

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Cui C … Chan FKL · Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 5.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=297 · Jul 27, 2026 · Am J Clin Nutrition · IF 6.5

One-carbon metabolism and chemotherapy-induced toxicities in patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.

New evidencecolorectal cancerbiomarker
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: associations in a prospective cohort require validation in interventional trials before modifying nutrition or supplementation.
What it foundHigher folate (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98) and vitamin B2 (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99) were associated with lower capecitabine toxicity risk specifically in patients with MTHFR C677T CT/TT genotype, while higher glycine (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.94) increased toxicity risk. Nonlinear associations were observed for vitamin B6 and vitamin B12.
ContextSuggests potential for personalized nutrition strategies to mitigate capecitabine toxicity in patients with MTHFR C677T CT/TT genotype, but current practice does not routinely adjust OCM biomarkers pre-chemotherapy.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017

Decision at stakeoptimizing chemotherapy tolerance in stage II-III colorectal cancer patients

Begin average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 using a patient-centered shared-decision modality choice, colonoscopy every 10 years (preferred) or annual FIT as Tier 1 options, with multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years as Tier 2 alternatives. A positive stool-based test requires diagnostic colonoscopy, and stool tests should not be ordered for patients who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Generally stop at age 75 with individualized decisions for ages 76-85 and no screening beyond 85.

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Zwart NRK … Kok DE · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · IF 6.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=1,608 · Jul 28, 2026 · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1

AI-Assisted Risk Stratification in Stage II Colorectal Cancer: Multi-Institutional Validation of Semantically-Enhanced Deep Learning.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecolorectal cancerbiomarker
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: validation of an AI tool for pathology slides. Consider future adoption if clinical trials confirm it improves adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in stage II CRC.
What it foundSÉMIL AI model stratified stage II CRC relapse risk (HR 1.98-4.73 across cohorts), outperforming non-semantic MIL (AUC 0.713-0.821 vs 0.686-0.803) and refining NCCN high-risk subgroup prognosis (HR 2.96-3.50).
ContextRefines but does not replace NCCN high-risk criteria (T4, MMR-D, etc.). First AI model to stratify within guideline-defined high-risk groups where treatment decisions are uncertain.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Magisson F … Williams DS · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №4 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Colorectal by RSS