← Issue №16/ week of Oct 18, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Colorectal, in full.

All 7 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 7, in full

most clinically useful first · the 1 the issue led with is ruled in green
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=15,857 · Oct 16, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Serrated polyp detection rates beyond adenoma detection rate for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: findings from the SCREESCO trial.

New evidencecolorectal cancer screeningserrated polypepidemiology
Clinical takeawayMonitor and aim to improve PSPDR alongside ADR in colonoscopy practice, particularly for endoscopists with low PSPDR (<10%), to reduce PCCRC risk. Specific strategies for improvement should be developed based on further evidence.
What it foundEndoscopists with low PSPDR (<10%) had a 5-year PCCRC incidence of 0.16% vs. 0.06% for those with high PSPDR (≥10%), and PCCRC incidence decreased as PSPDR increased (HR 0.90 per percentage-point increase; 95%CI 0.82-1.00; P = 0.04).
ContextRefines current practice by highlighting PSPDR as a complementary metric to ADR for identifying higher PCCRC risk, particularly in endoscopists with high ADR. Applies to average-risk colorectal cancer screening populations aged 45-75.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakethe role of serrated polyp detection rates in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer risk

… Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. … Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. …

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

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Sekiguchi M … Forsberg AM · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=2,624 · Oct 16, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Oncologic Outcomes and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Use in Early- Versus Late-Onset Colon Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

New evidencecolorectal cancerepidemiology
Clinical takeawayAge under 50 by itself is not a reason to give adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer; base the decision on T4, nodal status, grade and the other high-risk features as in older patients. The study cannot say whether the extra chemotherapy helped.
What it foundFive-year recurrence-free survival did not differ between early-onset (88.0%) and late-onset (86.1%) colon cancer patients (p = 0.09). Early-onset patients received adjuvant chemotherapy more frequently, including in low-risk Stage II disease.
ContextSingle-centre retrospective matched cohort (656 early-onset vs 1968 late-onset); few early-onset patients went untreated, so age-specific chemotherapy benefit is not estimable.
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.

Oh SY … Lim SB · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=1,000 · Oct 14, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

The New Face of an Old Disease: A Survey of Young People regarding Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.

Epidemiologyepidemiologycolorectal cancerhealth services
Clinical takeawayCounsel patients under 45 on early-onset CRC symptoms and the importance of discussing screening with their healthcare provider, especially those with low awareness or family history.
What it foundAwareness of early-onset colorectal cancer is low (24%) among adults aged 20-44, with only 22% having looked for information on CRC in the last year.
ContextConfirms low public awareness of early-onset CRC, highlighting a gap in education and screening uptake in younger adults. Limitations include the use of an opt-in survey, which may not represent the general population.
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.

Langenfeld SJ … American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (EOCRC) Steering Committee · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=679 · Oct 13, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Duodenal involvement in MUTYH-associated polyposis: findings from an international study and implications for endoscopic surveillance.

New evidencecolorectal canceradenomaepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider genotype-specific duodenal surveillance in MAP patients, particularly for Y179C and E480X genotypes, emphasizing assessment of the distal duodenum (D3, D4) and polypectomy of all detectable adenomas.
What it foundIn MAP patients, 13.4% had duodenal adenomas at first endoscopy, 22.7% developed adenomas during follow-up, and 0.74% developed duodenal cancer, with genotype-specific adenoma incidence (Y179C HR 5.33, E480X HR 4.07 vs G396D).
ContextRefines current MAP surveillance practices by highlighting genotype-specific risks, particularly for Y179C and E480X genotypes, and the importance of distal duodenum assessment, which were not previously emphasized in genotype-specific detail.
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.)

Decision at stakethe timing and scope of duodenal surveillance in MUTYH-associated polyposis

… For FAP, AFAP and MAP, upper endoscopic surveillance that includes viewing the duodenal papilla is suggested over no surveillance (Recommendation 8, conditional). … 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.

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

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 ↗
Truscott B … Thomas LE · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=8,170 · Oct 16, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Incidence and Risk Factors for C. difficile Reinfection After Faecal Microbiota Transplantation or Antibiotic Therapy.

New evidencemicrobiomeepidemiology
Clinical takeawayReinfection after successful FMT is uncommon (5% at 1 year, 10% at 3) and no different from antibiotics alone. PPI use was associated with more reinfection after FMT (HR 1.57), so reassess the indication for any PPI in patients with recurrent CDI; causation is not shown.
What it foundOne-year CDI reinfection rates were 5% with FMT vs 6% with antibiotics alone; PPI use increased reinfection risk after FMT (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03-2.41).
ContextConfirms low reinfection rates after FMT, similar to antibiotics alone, but identifies PPI use as a modifiable risk factor for reinfection.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update (Expert Review) on CDI in Adults, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026 / AGA Clinical Practice Update on CDI in IBD, Gastroenterology 2026 / ACG 2021 (superseded where they conflict)

Decision at stakethe use of FMT for multiply recurrent CDI

… The licensed products (fecal microbiota, live-jslm; fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk) are not approved for severe or fulminant CDI. After severe or fulminant CDI, keep the patient on suppressive vancomycin until a final outpatient FMT. … Consider it after an initial episode or first recurrence in patients at high risk of further recurrence or with a severe or refractory episode. …

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. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS, SEVERITY, SUPPRESSION and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

Two 2026 AGA expert reviews now take precedence over the ACG 2021 guideline on several points. They are the AGA Clinical Practice Update on CDI in adults (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 14 best practice advice statements) and the AGA update on CDI in IBD (Gastroenterology 2026; 12 statements). Neither grades its statements with GRADE. DIAGNOSIS: CDI is a clinical diagnosis that needs compatible symptoms (about 3 or more unformed stools in 24 h) plus supportive lab testing. A multistep algorithm is preferred: a sensitive test (GDH or NAAT), then toxin EIA. A NAAT+/EIA- result should be read with caution, and patients with discordant results but high clinical suspicion should still be treated. SEVERITY: classify hospitalized patients at diagnosis. Severe is WBC >15,000/µL and/or creatinine >1.5 (ACG: >1.5 mg/dL; one secondary summary of the AGA text reports >1.5 times baseline). Fulminant is shock, ileus, or megacolon. INITIAL NONFULMINANT EPISODE (nonsevere or severe): fidaxomicin 200 mg twice daily for 10 days is favored first-line because of its narrower spectrum and lower recurrence. Oral vancomycin 125 mg four times daily for 10 days is an acceptable alternative. Metronidazole should not be used outside fulminant disease, which removes the ACG 2021 low-risk metronidazole option. Do not use cholestyramine or other bile-acid binders as monotherapy or alongside vancomycin or fidaxomicin. FULMINANT: manage with a multidisciplinary team. Give oral or enteral vancomycin 500 mg every 6 hours plus IV metronidazole 500 mg every 8 hours, and add rectal vancomycin 500 mg every 6 hours if ileus is present. Consider multi-dose FMT by lower endoscopy. The licensed products (fecal microbiota, live-jslm; fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk) are not approved for severe or fulminant CDI. After severe or fulminant CDI, keep the patient on suppressive vancomycin until a final outpatient FMT. FIRST RECURRENCE (within 8 weeks of finishing therapy): tapering/pulsed vancomycin or fidaxomicin, plus a recurrence-risk assessment and consideration of microbiota restoration. MICROBIOTA-BASED THERAPY (FMT or the licensed products): offer after treatment of a second recurrence. Consider it after an initial episode or first recurrence in patients at high risk of further recurrence or with a severe or refractory episode. SUPPRESSION: consider prolonged low-dose vancomycin 125 mg daily for patients with multiple recurrences who cannot receive or have failed microbiota-based therapy, have limited life expectancy or ongoing comorbidities, or need frequent systemic antibiotics. PREVENTION: do not use vancomycin prophylaxis during systemic antibiotics in the general population. Do not use probiotics for primary or secondary prevention. Encourage a high-fiber diet. Do not stop a PPI that has a legitimate indication, but review its use. Counsel patients with prior CDI to avoid unnecessary antibiotics. Use barrier precautions and EPA-approved sporicidal disinfection. No routine test of cure: retest only for persistent or worsening diarrhea. Bezlotoxumab does not appear in the AGA statements (Merck discontinued it in January 2025). IBD (AGA 2026): test for CDI in IBD patients with new or worsening diarrhea, including those with a pouch or ileostomy, using a multistep toxin-based assay. Treat a first episode preferentially with fidaxomicin, or vancomycin if fidaxomicin is unavailable or too costly. Never use metronidazole. Continue necessary IBD immunosuppression during CDI, and steroids may be used if needed. If symptoms persist after 48-72 h of treatment, consider endoscopy to assess IBD activity and CMV. Offer microbiome-based therapy after at least one recurrence. No probiotics. Oral vancomycin prophylaxis may be considered during systemic antibiotics in IBD patients with prior CDI. The summaries reviewed did not mention the ACG 14-day minimum vancomycin course in IBD.

AGA Clinical Practice Update (Expert Review) on CDI in Adults, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026 / AGA Clinical Practice Update on CDI in IBD, Gastroenterology 2026 / ACG 2021 (superseded where they conflict) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Kelly CR … Lewis JD · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=334,882 · Oct 12, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

Platelet P2Y12 inhibitor use and risk of colorectal cancer incidence and colorectal cancer-related mortality: a Swedish registry-based cohort study.

New evidencecolorectal cancerepidemiologybiomarkerartificial intelligence
Clinical takeawayObservational, with likely residual confounding and survivor bias; do not start or extend a P2Y12 inhibitor for cancer benefit. Continue it for its cardiovascular indication, including in patients with colorectal cancer.
What it foundP2Y12 inhibitor use reduced CRC mortality (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.60) compared to non-users when initiated after CRC diagnosis in patients with ASCVD.
ContextParallels the aspirin literature; no randomised trial of P2Y12 inhibition in CRC exists.
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.

Fuchs M … Ludvigsson JF · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal review · Oct 14, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Review Article: Socioeconomic and Racial or Ethnic Inequalities Across the Colorectal Cancer Continuum: From Disparities to Action.

Guideline / reviewepidemiologyhealth services
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: this is a narrative review highlighting disparities but does not propose specific interventions beyond screening. Mailed stool-test outreach and patient navigation increased screening among underserved populations.
What it foundFive-year CRC survival was 60.6% among Black patients versus 66.7% among White patients in the US, with little improvement in this gap over decades. Socioeconomic disadvantage and belonging to some racial or ethnic minority groups were associated with higher CRC incidence, lower screening participation, later diagnosis, less timely or guideline-concordant treatment, poorer surveillance, and worse survival.
ContextConfirms longstanding disparities in CRC outcomes by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity, particularly in the US, and identifies gaps in evidence for reducing inequalities beyond screening. Equity should become an explicit outcome of CRC research, implementation, healthcare quality assessment, and clinical guidelines.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakeaddressing socioeconomic and racial or ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening

… Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. … The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

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

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Bardou M … Chapelle N · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №16 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Colorectal by RSS