← Issue №10/ week of Sep 6, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Colorectal, in full.

All 9 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 9, in full

most clinically useful first · the 3 the issue led with are ruled in green
Colorectal guideline · Sep 1, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Adenomatous Colorectal Polyposis Syndromes.

Guideline / reviewguidelinefamilial adenomatous polyposiscolorectal cancer
Clinical takeawayFollow updated guideline recommendations for risk assessment (personal/family history), genetic testing (modality/timing), and cancer risk mitigation (endoscopic/surgical interventions) in patients with suspected or confirmed hereditary adenomatous polyposis syndromes.
What it foundGuidelines outline risk assessment, genetic testing, and endoscopic/surgical management strategies for hereditary adenomatous colorectal polyposis syndromes (FAP and MAP) to reduce cancer incidence and mortality.
ContextUpdates prior guidelines with new evidence on genetic testing, management strategies, and cancer risk mitigation for FAP and MAP.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Kastrinos F, Lynch PM, Rubenstein JH). ACG Clinical Guideline: Genetic Testing and Management of Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015 (Recommendations 10 and 11).

Decision at stakethe timing and modality of genetic testing and surveillance in hereditary adenomatous polyposis syndromes

All patients meeting clinical criteria for, or carrying a pathogenic germline variant of, a hereditary GI cancer syndrome should have pre- and post-test genetic counseling, and at-risk first-degree relatives should be offered genetic testing.

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

All patients meeting clinical criteria for, or carrying a pathogenic germline variant of, a hereditary GI cancer syndrome should have pre- and post-test genetic counseling, and at-risk first-degree relatives should be offered genetic testing. Syndrome-specific surveillance: LYNCH SYNDROME, colonoscopy at least every 2 years (annual colonoscopy should be considered in confirmed mutation carriers), beginning at age 20-25 years, or 2-5 years before the earliest CRC diagnosis in the family if that was before age 25; baseline EGD with gastric biopsy and test-and-treat for H. pylori at age 30-35, with ongoing upper-GI surveillance every 3-5 years where family history of gastric/duodenal cancer exists; annual endometrial biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound from age 30-35, with prophylactic hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy offered after childbearing; surveillance BEYOND population-based recommendations for the urinary tract, pancreas, breast and prostate is NOT recommended unless supported by family history. CLASSIC FAP, annual sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy beginning at puberty; colectomy indicated for documented/suspected cancer or significant symptoms (absolute), or for relative indications such as multiple adenomas >6 mm or a significant increase in adenoma number that make endoscopic control unfeasible; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound. AFAP, surveillance by colonoscopy (not sigmoidoscopy, as polyps are right-sided) with polypectomy every 1-2 years, beginning in the late teens to early 20s; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound (as for classic FAP). MUTYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS (biallelic MUTYH), colonoscopy every 1-2 years beginning at age 25-30; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound (as for classic FAP). SERRATED POLYPOSIS SYNDROME, colonoscopy every 1-3 years with attempted removal of all polyps >5 mm.

American College of Gastroenterology (Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Kastrinos F, Lynch PM, Rubenstein JH). ACG Clinical Guideline: Genetic Testing and Management of Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015 (Recommendations 10 and 11). · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Mankaney G … Burke CA · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=110,410 · Sep 3, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Longitudinal Data from a Large, Multi-Target Stool DNA Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

New evidencecolorectal cancer screeningbiomarkerartificial intelligencehealth services
Clinical takeawayPrioritize colonoscopy follow-up within 6 months after a positive mt-sDNA test to maximize advanced adenoma detection, and address system-level barriers to repeat mt-sDNA testing every 3 years after a negative result, as only 35.3% adhered to repeat testing.
What it foundColonoscopy after positive mt-sDNA had a 30.7% advanced adenoma yield and 1.3% adenocarcinoma yield, exceeding specialty society benchmarks (adenoma detection rate >50%). Longer intervals (>6 months) to colonoscopy were associated with higher advanced adenoma detection (trend P=0.001).
ContextConfirms mt-sDNA as a high-yield screening tool but highlights critical gaps in follow-up (65.1% completion within 12 months) and repeat testing adherence (35.3% within 3 years), which undermine program effectiveness.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020

Decision at stakethe clinical decision to use mt-sDNA as a screening tool for colorectal cancer

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

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 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 adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed. Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps. Refer for genetic evaluation when Lynch, FAP/AFAP/MAP, or serrated polyposis syndrome criteria are met.

US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Garg SK … Chaudhary R · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal meta analysis · Sep 1, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Prevalence and Progression of Subtypes of Gastric Premalignant Lesions: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.

New evidenceepidemiologymeta-analysissystematic reviewbiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider subtyping gastric precancerous lesions (complete vs incomplete IM, LGD vs HGD) during endoscopy to inform risk-stratification, particularly in patients with incomplete IM or HGD, acknowledging current guidelines already recommend this approach.
What it foundIncomplete gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM) progresses to gastric cancer at 12.15 per 1000 person-years vs 1.73 for complete IM (p <0.01); high-grade dysplasia (HGD) progresses at 344.48 per 1000 person-years vs 11.55 for low-grade dysplasia (LGD, p <0.01), though estimates have substantial heterogeneity.
ContextThe literature reports a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and progression of subtypes of gastric premalignant lesions, but no consensus on colorectal health was identified in the provided signals.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34)

Decision at stakerisk stratification of gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia subtypes

Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice.

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

Perform individual gastric risk assessment and staging of precancerous conditions at first-time gastroscopy, irrespective of the patient's country of origin. Use high quality endoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, for screening, diagnosis and staging of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia and after endoscopic therapy; VCE guides the biopsy site, with random biopsies taken only when there are no endoscopically suspected changes. Take biopsies from at least two topographic sites, 2 from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, VCE-guided, in two separate, clearly labeled vials; an additional incisura biopsy is optional, not required. Stage with validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e.g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e.g. EGGIM) to stratify gastric cancer risk (suggestion, weaker than the biopsy recommendation). Follow up patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3+ or EGGIM 5+) OR an advanced histological stage that reaches OLGA/OLGIM III/IV, severe atrophy or intestinal metaplasia and/or significant changes in both antrum and corpus rising to stage III/IV, not any intestinal metaplasia or any antrum-plus-corpus involvement on its own, with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of country of origin (strong recommendation, moderate quality). Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. Eradicate H. pylori in all patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy. Discontinue or do not start gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80, and weigh comorbidities when planning treatment of superficial lesions. Advise smoking cessation; low-dose daily aspirin may be considered for gastric cancer prevention only in selected individuals already at high cardiovascular risk. For visible neoplasia, use ESD for differentiated lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low or high grade) or intramucosal carcinoma (any size if not ulcerated, or ≤30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions ≤10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy. At the population level, endoscopic screening is suggested every 2-3 years in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate >20 per 100,000 person-years), every 5 years in intermediate-risk regions (ASR 10-20) only if cost-effectiveness has been proven, and not at all in low-risk regions (ASR <10).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Grell Y … Laszkowska M · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=730 · Sep 3, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Impact of Baseline Synchronous Adenoma Burden on the Risk of Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia.

New evidencecolorectal canceradenomacolorectal cancer screeningdysplasia
Clinical takeawayIn patients with a high-risk adenoma, use the presence of additional synchronous adenomas to identify a subgroup at particularly high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, reinforcing the importance of their recommended 3-year surveillance interval.
What it foundAmong patients with high-risk findings at baseline, the risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly elevated when a high-risk adenoma (HRA) was found with synchronous low-risk adenomas (aIRR 2.56) or with synchronous HRAs (aIRR 3.93), compared to having 3-4 low-risk adenomas alone.
ContextRefines current high-risk stratification by showing meta-ACRN risk is not uniform among conventionally 'high-risk' patients (3-10 LRAs or any HRA); synchronous adenoma burden drives heterogeneity.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020

Decision at stakeassigning colonoscopy surveillance intervals based on polyp number, size, and histology

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 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 adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed.

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

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 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 adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed. Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps. Refer for genetic evaluation when Lynch, FAP/AFAP/MAP, or serrated polyposis syndrome criteria are met.

US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Chang WY … Chiu HM · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=14,233 · Sep 1, 2026 · Colorectal Disease · IF 3.2

New persistent opioid use after colorectal surgery in Sweden: A nationwide register-based cohort study.

New evidenceepidemiologycolorectal surgeryhealth services
Clinical takeawayConsider opioid-sparing strategies, particularly avoiding opioid dispensation within 7 days of surgery, to reduce NPOU risk compared to standard opioid prescribing in opioid-naïve adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
What it found2.63% (95% CI, 2.37-2.90%) of opioid-naïve adults developed new persistent opioid use (NPOU) after elective inpatient colorectal surgery, with opioid dispensation within 7 days of surgery (aOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.76-2.72) as a modifiable risk factor.
ContextConfirms NPOU as a post-surgical complication in colorectal surgery and identifies modifiable risk factors, aligning with broader efforts to reduce opioid dependence.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association, 'AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surgical Risk Assessment and Perioperative Management in Cirrhosis: Expert Review' (Northup PG et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17(4):595-606). DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.043, PMID 30273751.

Decision at stakeperioperative opioid management in elective colorectal surgery

Defer elective surgery for active GI bleeding, active IBD flare, recent pancreatitis, or unoptimized anemia, and specify perioperative precautions (stress-dose steroids, biologic hold matrix, GLP-1/SGLT2 holds, aspiration precautions) where indicated.

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

Determine GI surgical clearance based on the specific condition and its activity rather than an automatic sign-off: most stable chronic GI conditions (GERD, IBS, controlled IBD, compensated MASLD, asymptomatic gallstones) may be cleared, while active conditions, cirrhosis, and perioperative drug management require explicit stratification and documentation. For any cirrhotic patient, perform mandatory risk stratification with VOCAL-Penn and Child-Pugh class before clearance; manage variceal prophylaxis per individualized endoscopic and hemodynamic assessment (including NSBB for appropriate candidates) and address rebalanced hemostasis without prophylactic INR correction. Defer elective surgery for active GI bleeding, active IBD flare, recent pancreatitis, or unoptimized anemia, and specify perioperative precautions (stress-dose steroids, biologic hold matrix, GLP-1/SGLT2 holds, aspiration precautions) where indicated.

American Gastroenterological Association, 'AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surgical Risk Assessment and Perioperative Management in Cirrhosis: Expert Review' (Northup PG et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17(4):595-606). DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.043, PMID 30273751. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Gedda C … Soop M · Colorectal Disease : the Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · IF 3.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal systematic review · Sep 1, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Delays in Diagnosis of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Across the United States: A Systematic Review.

Guideline / reviewepidemiologysystematic reviewhealth servicescolorectal cancer
Clinical takeawayMaintain a high index of suspicion for colorectal cancer in adults under 50 with persistent GI symptoms (e.g., rectal bleeding, change in bowel habits, abdominal pain), recognizing that diagnostic delays are common and stem from a combination of patient, provider, and system factors. Advocate for system-level interventions to support earlier detection.
What it foundThis systematic review of 35 studies on early-onset colorectal cancer found that most research uses advanced stage at diagnosis as a proxy for delay and identifies complex, crosscutting patient, provider, and system-level factors rather than a single quantifiable cause.
ContextThis review formalizes the widely recognized clinical problem of diagnostic delays in early-onset colorectal cancer, confirming that the issue is multifactorial and highlighting the limitations of the current evidence base, which often relies on stage at diagnosis as a proxy for delay. The findings emphasize the need for more qualitative research to identify effective interventions.
Refinessuggested 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 need for heightened awareness of early-onset colorectal cancer in patients under 45

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 ↗
Marzoughi M … Suwanabol PA · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · Sep 1, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

METTL3-m6A-IGF2BP2 Axis-Mediated Stabilization of MTFR1 Promotes Glycolytic Reprogramming in Colorectal Cancer.

Basic sciencebasic sciencetranslationalbiomarkercolorectal cancer
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: a mechanistic finding in cell lines and mice identifying a potential prognostic marker and therapeutic target that requires clinical validation.
What it foundHigh MTFR1 expression, stabilized by a METTL3-m6A-IGF2BP2 epitranscriptomic axis, was associated with poorer overall and disease-free survival in colorectal cancer patient cohorts.
ContextThis study identifies a novel epitranscriptomic pathway (METTL3-m6A-IGF2BP2-MTFR1) that regulates metabolic reprogramming in CRC, opening a new potential avenue for biomarkers and therapy beyond established genomic and signaling pathways.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018

Decision at stakeidentifying prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets in colorectal cancer

For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant).

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

For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant). For ages 76-85, the decision to start or continue is individualized, based on shared decision-making that weighs prior screening history, comorbidity, life expectancy, CRC risk, and patient preference (USPSTF Grade C). Screening is not recommended/offered at age 86 or older. The specific USMSTF criterion for stopping in previously well-screened patients is: individuals up to date with screening who have negative prior screening (particularly high-quality colonoscopy) should consider stopping at age 75 OR when life expectancy is less than 10 years, not 5 years. Individuals without adequate prior screening may be considered for screening up to age 85 depending on age and comorbidities. New alarm symptoms (iron deficiency anemia, GI bleeding, change in bowel habits, weight loss) always warrant workup regardless of age or screening status; this remains sound general practice though it is not a specific guideline citation.

USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Wei L … Chi X · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=91 · Sep 5, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Rectal bleeding in early infancy: a warning sign of necrotizing enterocolitis that should not be overlooked in high-risk infants.

Epidemiologypediatricepidemiology
Clinical takeawayFor infants younger than 3 months presenting with rectal bleeding, especially those born preterm or with congenital heart disease (CHD), maintain a high index of suspicion for necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and consider prompt evaluation, as 78.1% of NEC cases with CHD required surgery.
What it foundIn a retrospective series of 91 infants younger than 3 months with rectal bleeding, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) was the most common diagnosis (35.1%), followed by isolated rectal bleeding (22.0%) and infectious gastroenteritis (16.5%).
ContextThis study challenges the common assumption that rectal bleeding in early infancy is typically benign (e.g., from anal fissures or milk protein allergy) by identifying necrotizing enterocolitis as the single most frequent cause (35.1%) in a hospital-based cohort of high-risk infants, particularly those with CHD and preterm birth.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), '2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Infectious Diarrhea,' 2017

Decision at staketriage of acute diarrhea or rectal bleeding in infants under 3 months

Triage acute diarrhea (<14 days) by duration and severity: most is viral, self-limited, and needs only supportive care with hydration and no testing. When indicated, treat adults with a fluoroquinolone such as ciprofloxacin or with azithromycin, chosen by local susceptibility and travel history (strong, moderate); infants <3 months with suspected bacterial etiology instead receive a third-generation cephalosporin (e.g., ceftriaxone) or azithromycin.

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

Triage acute diarrhea (<14 days) by duration and severity: most is viral, self-limited, and needs only supportive care with hydration and no testing. Reserve stool testing (culture, Shiga toxin EIA, CDI two-step, GI multiplex PCR, O&P/antigens) for severe, bloody, febrile, immunocompromised, elderly, recent-antibiotic, or persistent (≥7 d) cases, and admit for sepsis, severe dehydration, AKI, or toxic appearance. Empiric antibiotics are not indicated for most acute watery diarrhea, and are not recommended even for bloody diarrhea in immunocompetent patients while awaiting stool results (IDSA strong, low); reserve empiric therapy for the specific indications: ill immunocompetent patients with fever documented in a medical setting, abdominal pain, and bloody diarrhea/bacillary dysentery presumptively due to Shigella; recent international travelers with temperature ≥38.5°C and/or signs of sepsis (weak, low); and immunocompromised patients with severe illness and bloody diarrhea (strong, low). When indicated, treat adults with a fluoroquinolone such as ciprofloxacin or with azithromycin, chosen by local susceptibility and travel history (strong, moderate); infants <3 months with suspected bacterial etiology instead receive a third-generation cephalosporin (e.g., ceftriaxone) or azithromycin. Avoid antibiotics in suspected STEC/EHEC (Shiga toxin 2-producing or O157; strong, moderate), and avoid loperamide/antimotility agents in EHEC, CDI, or any febrile/inflammatory (dysenteric) diarrhea.

Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), '2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Infectious Diarrhea,' 2017 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
De Rose DU … Di Pede A · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal review · Sep 1, 2026 · Nat Rev Gastro Hep · IF 57.5

Long non-coding RNAs in colorectal cancer: shaping the tumour microenvironment and advancing precision oncology.

Basic sciencebasic sciencetranslationalbiomarkercolorectal cancer
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: a mechanistic review of lncRNAs in CRC TME, proposing potential biomarkers and therapeutic strategies without human data.
What it foundLong non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) regulate colorectal cancer (CRC) tumor microenvironment (TME) via immune modulation, vascular remodeling, and extracellular matrix dynamics, with dual roles as oncogenes or tumor suppressors.
ContextExpands understanding of CRC biology by detailing lncRNA roles in TME, but remains preclinical with no direct clinical validation.
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 for lncRNAs to inform future colorectal cancer screening or therapeutic strategies

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 ↗
Bartolini M … Lenz HJ · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 57.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №10 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Colorectal by RSS