← Issue №13/ week of Sep 27, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Colorectal, in full.

All 6 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
Filter

All 6, in full

most clinically useful first · the 1 the issue led with is ruled in green
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=1,021 · Sep 21, 2026 · Clin Transl Gastro · IF 3.4

Association between index adenomas and advanced neoplasia at third surveillance colonoscopy: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

New evidencecolorectal cancer screeningadenomacolorectal cancerepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider closer surveillance intervals for patients with advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy, as they remain at significantly higher risk of advanced neoplasia even after two normal or low-risk surveillance exams.
What it foundPatients with advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy had a 3.96-fold higher risk of advanced neoplasia at third surveillance compared to those with no adenomas (95% CI: 1.96-7.98).
ContextThis study addresses a gap in USMTSF guidelines, which lack recommendations for third surveillance colonoscopy in patients with index adenomas. It confirms that advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy predict long-term risk.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement)

Decision at stakethe surveillance interval for patients with advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy

General post-polypectomy surveillance still follows USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al.), which has not been replaced: 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or an adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, 3 years; >10 adenomas, 1 year with polyposis evaluation. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

General post-polypectomy surveillance still follows USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al.), which has not been replaced: 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or an adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, 3 years; >10 adenomas, 1 year with polyposis evaluation. For serrated polyps: 1-2 SSLs <10 mm, 5-10 years; 3-4 SSLs <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm, 3-5 years; an SSL ≥10 mm, an SSL with dysplasia, or a traditional serrated adenoma, 3 years. When findings are mixed, use the shortest interval indicated. Before applying an interval, confirm complete resection and adequate prep. Piecemeal resections get a site check, and malignant (T1) polyps go to a tumor-board pathway. Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is now governed by a separate USMSTF consensus statement (Rex et al., published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Am J Gastroenterol and GIE on 2026-09-30). It has 11 recommendations. Diagnose SPS with the 2019 WHO criteria, which count the size, cumulative lifetime number and location of serrated polyps. Until SPS is diagnosed, record the number, size and location of serrated polyps in every colonoscopy report. SPS colonoscopy should be done by endoscopists with documented adequate SSL detection, using high-definition white light with or without chromoendoscopy. Without concurrent CRC, endoscopy is preferred over surgery for primary management. If the polyp burden cannot be managed endoscopically, refer to an advanced endoscopic resection expert before surgery. Resect SSLs and hyperplastic polyps by cold snare, with submucosal injection for larger lesions. Do clearance colonoscopy at 3-6 months, then surveil every 1-2 years. Consider 3-year intervals if the burden is greatly reduced at surveillance. First-degree relatives start colonoscopy at age 40, or 10 years before the youngest CRC diagnosis in the family, or 5 years before the youngest SPS diagnosis, whichever comes first. SPS has no established genetic basis, so germline testing is recommended only when concurrent non-serrated polyps suggest a heritable syndrome. Lynch, FAP/AFAP and MAP criteria still trigger genetic evaluation.

USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Anderson J … Butterly LF · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=50 · Sep 23, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

The THOMAS Study: A Pilot Study for Patient-Administered Anal Cancer Screening.

New evidencecolorectal cancerdysplasiahealth services
Clinical takeawayPreliminary data suggest patient-administered anal dysplasia screening may be an option for high-risk patients (HIV-positive, anoreceptive intercourse) who decline in-office testing, but emphasize its moderate accuracy and need for further validation due to study limitations.
What it foundPatient-collected anal swabs had 72.0% accuracy for detecting atypical cells and 83.7% accuracy for high-risk HPV, with moderate agreement (κ = 0.51-0.63) compared to physician-collected samples in a pilot study.
ContextPilot study (n=50) at a single institution; expands screening access for a high-risk population where office-based sampling is a barrier but generalizability is limited.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS); Stier EA, et al. "International Anal Neoplasia Society's consensus guidelines for anal cancer screening." International Journal of Cancer, 2024

Decision at stakethe feasibility and accuracy of patient-administered anal cancer screening

Offer anal cancer screening only where there is capacity to perform high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and to treat what it finds. … Screen with anal cytology alone, high-risk HPV testing alone (with HPV16 genotyping), or hrHPV-cytology co-testing, all three perform acceptably; HRA is the DIAGNOSTIC procedure for an abnormal screen, not itself a screening test. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Offer anal cancer screening only where there is capacity to perform high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and to treat what it finds. Screening is RECOMMENDED for: MSM and transgender women with HIV, beginning at age 35; all other people with HIV, and MSM and transgender women without HIV, beginning at age 45; solid organ transplant recipients, beginning 10 years post-transplant; and persons with a history of vulvar HSIL or vulvar cancer, beginning within 1 year of that diagnosis. Screening may be CONSIDERED via shared decision-making, and only where HRA capacity is adequate, for persons aged 45 or older with a history of cervical or vaginal HSIL/cancer, perianal warts, persistent (>1 year) cervical HPV16, or autoimmune conditions. Screen with anal cytology alone, high-risk HPV testing alone (with HPV16 genotyping), or hrHPV-cytology co-testing, all three perform acceptably; HRA is the DIAGNOSTIC procedure for an abnormal screen, not itself a screening test. Perform digital anal rectal examination as part of the physical exam at every screening visit. Refer immediately to HRA for any abnormal cytology, ASC-US or worse, when screening is by cytology alone, since there is no hrHPV result available to triage it; for ASC-US or worse cytology accompanied by a positive hrHPV result on co-testing; for ASC-H or HSIL cytology regardless of HPV result; and for any HPV16-positive result regardless of cytology. Repeat screening in 12 months after NILM cytology alone or a negative HPV test alone, or after ASC-US cytology with negative hrHPV; repeat in 12-24 months after co-testing that is both NILM and hrHPV-negative. Where HRA capacity is reduced, restrict immediate referral to ASC-H/HSIL cytology and to HPV16-positive results, and manage the remainder with repeat screening. Treat HSIL found at HRA-directed biopsy rather than observing it: in ANCHOR, treatment reduced progression to invasive cancer by approximately 57% in people with HIV aged 35 and older.

International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS); Stier EA, et al. "International Anal Neoplasia Society's consensus guidelines for anal cancer screening." International Journal of Cancer, 2024 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Miyazaki NL … Ng M · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=63 · Sep 23, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Efficacy of Preoperative Colonoscopy Following Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Placement in Patients with Obstructive Colorectal Cancer.

New evidencecolorectal cancercolorectal surgery
Clinical takeawayConsider preoperative total colonoscopy after self-expandable metallic stent placement in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer to detect synchronous cancers and optimize surgical planning, acknowledging limitations of retrospective, single-center design and use of uncovered stents only.
What it foundPreoperative total colonoscopy after self-expandable metallic stent placement detected synchronous colorectal cancer in 18.6% of patients (8 of 43), altering surgical strategy, compared to standard preoperative imaging.
ContextConfirms the utility of preoperative colonoscopy in detecting synchronous cancers, a practice not yet universally adopted in this setting, but with noted limitations.
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.

Inoue K … Higurashi T · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal meta analysis · n=33,530 · Sep 25, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Gastric and Duodenal Cancer in Lynch Syndrome: Incidence and Endoscopic Surveillance-Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

New evidenceLynch syndromecolorectal cancersystematic reviewmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider upper endoscopy surveillance for GC in Lynch syndrome, particularly in MSH2 carriers, but recognize that evidence for DC surveillance is lacking and no survival benefit is established. Follow current ACG guidelines for upper-GI surveillance every 3-5 years where family history of gastric/duodenal cancer exists.
What it foundLynch syndrome patients have pooled incidence rates of 0.98 per 1,000 person-years for gastric cancer (GC) and 1.93 for duodenal cancer (DC), with GC risk varying by MMR gene (MLH1: 0.44, MSH2: 1.27, MSH6: 0.03). EGD surveillance was associated with lower GC risk (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.69) but not DC risk (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.35-1.74), based on limited and observational evidence.
ContextCurrent guidelines lack clear recommendations for upper endoscopic surveillance in Lynch syndrome due to limited and observational evidence. This meta-analysis quantifies cancer risks by gene but does not resolve uncertainty about surveillance efficacy.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2026 (adenomatous polyposis: Mankaney et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2026;121:2086-2120) / ACG 2015 (Lynch, SPS: Syngal et al.)

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Polyposis syndromes are now governed by ACG 2026 (Mankaney G, Idos GE, Stoffel EM, Weiss JM, Shah S, Qayed E, Harnegie MP, Burke CA; Am J Gastroenterol 2026;121(9):2086-2120, GRADE). For polyposis, it replaces the 2015 ACG hereditary GI cancer guideline (Syngal et al.), Recommendations 10-11. Germline multigene panel testing is recommended for anyone with 20 or more cumulative lifetime colorectal adenomas (strong recommendation) and suggested for 10-19 adenomas (conditional, because the yield is lower). The 2015 polyposis testing trigger was more than 10 adenomas. Asymptomatic APC carriers, biallelic MUTYH carriers, and untested people at risk for AFAP or MAP should have a baseline colonoscopy by age 18-20. Colonoscopy then repeats every 1-3 years depending on the histology, size and number of polyps. It moves to every 3-6 months when there are many or large polyps, or high-grade dysplasia. This replaces the 2015 schedules of annual sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy from puberty for classic FAP, colonoscopy every 1-2 years from the late teens for AFAP, and from age 25-30 for MAP. Whether at-risk children in classic-FAP families still start younger is not stated in the excerpt available at review; confirm against the full text. For FAP, AFAP and MAP, upper endoscopic surveillance that includes viewing the duodenal papilla is suggested over no surveillance (Recommendation 8, conditional). Duodenal management is still staged by Spigelman, which has acknowledged limits in sensitivity for duodenal and papillary cancer. The 2026 starting age and intervals for upper endoscopy are not stated in the excerpt available at review. The choice of operation (total colectomy with IRA, IPAA, or end ileostomy) is individualized by genotype, polyp distribution, cancer status, comorbidity and preference, with early referral to an experienced colorectal surgeon. IRA is generally favored with up to about 20 rectal adenomas and IPAA above that, though this is not a fixed cutoff. The rectum or pouch should be checked endoscopically every year after IRA or IPAA. Chemoprevention is recommended against as a substitute for colectomy when surgery is indicated. Whether 2026 keeps annual thyroid ultrasound is not stated in the excerpt available at review. Lynch syndrome and serrated polyposis syndrome are outside the 2026 document, so the Lynch and SPS parts of the standard on file were not re-verified here: Lynch colonoscopy every 1-2 years from age 20-25, gyn and upper-GI surveillance, and SPS colonoscopy every 1-3 years with removal of polyps over 5 mm.

ACG 2026 (adenomatous polyposis: Mankaney et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2026;121:2086-2120) / ACG 2015 (Lynch, SPS: Syngal et al.) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Ausina-Poüs V … Jover R · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal review · Sep 21, 2026 · JAMA · IF 63.1

Vaccines for Cancer: A Translational Science Review.

New evidencetranslationalbasic sciencebiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider Sipuleucel-T for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer and talimogene laherparepvec for advanced melanoma, as these are approved therapies with demonstrated benefits. Many other cancer vaccines remain investigational.
What it foundSipuleucel-T reduced all-cause mortality in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (32% vs 23%; HR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-0.98]) and talimogene laherparepvec increased 6-month response rates in advanced melanoma (16.3% vs 2.1%; OR 8.9).
ContextReviews emerging vaccine strategies (neoantigens, whole tumor cells, intratumoral injection) alongside approved vaccines (Sipuleucel-T, talimogene laherparepvec) with survival and response benefits in select cancers.
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.

Disis ML … Cecil DL · JAMA · IF 63.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=135 · Sep 23, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Understanding the Discordance between Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Scores and Bowel-Related Quality of Life: a Secondary Analysis of a Multicenter Trial.

New evidencerectal cancercolorectal surgery
Clinical takeawayAssess bowel-related QoL separately from LARS scores in post-rectal cancer surgery patients, as symptom severity does not consistently predict QoL impact. This is particularly relevant for patients with major LARS and those with minor/no LARS who may still experience significant QoL impairment.
What it foundAmong patients with major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (n = 82), 61% had bowel-related quality of life (QoL) impairment, while 39% did not; in those with minor/no LARS (n = 53), 20.8% had major bowel-related QoL impairment.
ContextChallenges the assumption that LARS scores alone adequately reflect patient experience, highlighting the need for broader QoL assessment in this population. The study underscores the importance of considering both LARS severity and bowel-related QoL in post-rectal cancer surgery patients.
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.

Presutti R … Garfinkle R · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №13 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Colorectal by RSS