ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Sex and gender-oriented colorectal cancer screening: a consensus study from the AIOM- GISEG working group.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gender medicine in oncology focuses on understanding the differences in cancer incidence, progression and responses to oncological treatments between men and women. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a paradigmatic example of sex and gender disparities in incidence and prevalence, age of onset, pathogenesis, tumour location and responses to oncological treatments. However, despite growing evidence of these differences, there are no current clinical recommendations based on sex and gender, nor are there differentiated diagnostic-therapeutic pathways. Methods: The objective of this consensus study was to identify areas of expert agreement regarding the potential appropriateness and clinical relevance of sex and gender-tailored colorectal cancer screening strategies on the basis of currently available evidence. A comprehensive literature review was conducted in order to examine any existing evidence on sex-and gender-related differences in CRC. Publications that were included in this review were manually searched in PubMed/Medline by using different combinations of relevant keywords. Based on synthesised evidence, a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to develop consensus statements using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Results: The findings highlighted significant disparities between men and women in incidence, age at onset, lesion distribution, participation rates, and barriers to screening, hence supporting the need for a more tailored approach in CRC screening strategies. Through a structured rating process and iterative discussion, the panel formulated a set of statements and actionable recommendations to enhance equity and effectiveness in CRC screening programs. Discussion: Core statements emphasize the importance of collecting and analysing sex-disaggregated data in screening registries, promoting further research to address existing knowledge gaps, tailoring communication strategies to gender-specific barriers and facilitators to improve screening adherence, considering potential differences between men and women in the optimal age and modality for CRC screening, within a framework of personalized and precision medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.