Recent guidelines recommend that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening after age 75 be considered on an individualized basis, and discourage screening for people over 85 due to competing causes of mortality. Given the heterogeneity in the health of older individuals, and lack of data within current guidelines for personalized CRC screening approaches, there remains a need for a clearer framework to inform clinical decision-making. A revision of the current approach to CRC screening in older adults is even more compelling given the improvements in CRC treatment, post-treatment survival, and increasing life expectancy in the population. In this review, we aim to examine the personalization of CRC screening cessation based on specific factors influencing life and health expectancy such as comorbidity, frailty, and cognitive status. We will also review screening modalities and endoscopic technique for minimizing risk, the risks of screening unique to older adults, and CRC treatment outcomes in older patients, in order to provide important information to aid CRC screening decisions for this age group. This review article offers a unique approach to this topic from both the gastroenterologist and geriatrician perspective by reviewing the use of specific clinical assessment tools, and addressing technical aspects of screening colonoscopy and periprocedural management to mitigate screening-related complications.

Many advanced age patients who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer are often not offered surgical treatment due to presumed high risks of the procedure. While there is data to support surgical treatment of colorectal cancer in advanced age patients, screening colonoscopy is not currently recommended for patients older than 85 years. Moreover, recent studies concluded that the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients 80 years and older is increasing. This raises the concern that the current guidelines are withholding screening colonoscopy for healthy elderly patients. Another concern contrary to this would be the new trend of growing incidence of advanced colorectal cancer in the younger patient population. Together they raise the ethical dilemma of how to best utilize colonoscopies as well as surgical intervention, as they are limited resources.

The benefit to elderly patients (≥80 years old) of referral to the resource-intensive lower gastrointestinal 2-week wait (LGI-2WW) pathway is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the survival outcome of elderly patients referred to a LGI-2WW service.

This study comprised a retrospective analysis of a prospectively gathered database of patients referred to a single-centre LGI-2WW service and conformed to STROBE guidelines. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was performed with the chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier survival curves compared with the generalized log-rank test.

A total of 10 155 patients referred to the LGI-2WW service between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018 were analysed; median follow-up was 37.0 months (range 0-66 months). Six hundred and ninety one cancers were diagnosed (6.8% detection rate); 551 (80%) of these were lower GI cancers (LGICas) [517 (75%) colorectal; 34 (5%) anal]. Forty per cent of LGICas were diagnosed via the LGI-2WW service. Patients aged ≥80 years with LGICa were more likely to be treated with palliative intent [age <80 years, 92/360 (26%) vs. age ≥80 years, 105/191 (55%); p < 0.001]. LGICa patients aged <85 years had a survival difference between those treated with curative intent (LGICa-Cur) or palliative intent (LGICa-Pal) (median survival for patients aged 80-84 years: LGICa-Cur 57 months vs. LGICa-Pal 15 months; p < 0.001). Patients aged ≥85 years did not have any survival difference by treatment intent (median survival for patients aged 85-89 years: LGICa-Cur 31 months vs. LGICa-Pal 16 months; p = 0.062; median survival for patients aged ≥90 years: LGICa-Cur 14 months vs. LGICa-Pal 16 months; p = 0.703).

Patients with LGICa aged ≥85 years have similar survival whether treated with curative or palliative intent. This can inform management discussions with patients and LGI-2WW referral pathway prioritization approaches.

Colonic diverticulosis increases with age, leading to a higher risk of colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) in the elderly. As life expectancy continues to increase, the need for endoscopic hemostasis for CDB in the elderly can also be expected to increase. However, there have been no reports to date on the feasibility of endoscopic hemostasis for elderly CDB patients. Several recent studies have addressed the effectiveness of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for CDB. In this study, we evaluate the safety and effectiveness of EBL in elderly CDB patients compared to younger CDB patients.

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of consecutive patients treated with EBL for the first time at a tertiary referral center between March 2011 and November 2017. Patients were grouped according to age into those at least 75 years old (the Elderly) and those <75 years old (the Nonelderly). Patient characteristics, technical success, and complications were compared between the two groups.

EBL was performed in 153 patients during the study period (49 Elderly patients and 104 Nonelderly patients). Elderly patients were less likely to be male (p < 0.001) and had lower hemoglobin levels on admission (p < 0.001). Bleeding on the right side of the splenic flexure was observed more frequently in the Nonelderly (p = 0.002). Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and use of antithrombotic agents were significantly higher in the Elderly (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Active bleeding tended to be observed more frequently in the Elderly (p = 0.054), while the difference was not significant. There were no significant differences in the shock index, procedure time, or units of packed red blood cells transfused between the 2 groups. No significant differences in the technical success rate (97.1 vs. 98%, p = 0.76), early rebleeding rate (10.2 vs. 14.4%, p = 0.47), or other complications (2 vs. 1%, p = 0.58) were observed. Perforation and abscess formation were not observed in either group. Female gender, left-sidedness, higher CCI, and lower hemoglobin level were all significantly more frequently observed in the Elderly on multiple logistic regression analysis.

EBL may be similarly safe and effective for the treatment of CDB in the elderly as in the nonelderly.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common form of cancer affecting both men and women. Extensive screening guidelines have been developed to help reduce the incidence of disease. Currently, United States Preventative Service Task Force guidelines recommend against routine screening in those 85 years and older. However, octogenarians and nonagenarians continue to be screened for CRC with no consensus on indications. The aim of this study is to examine family history of CRC as a risk factor and clinical indication for providing screening colonoscopies to the "oldest old" geriatric population, defined as aged 80 years and above.

We conducted a retrospective review of a Veterans' Health Administration database to identify male veterans aged 80 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopy. Subsequently, we examined those who tested positive for CRC with a family history of CRC.

Of the 458,224 patients who are 80 years and older in the Veterans Affairs (VA) database, 17.8% underwent a screening colonoscopy; 11.42% of these individuals were further diagnosed with CRC; and 8.89% of those with diagnosed CRC had a documented family history of CRC.

Family history should not be used as an inclusionary criterion for CRC screening in the 80 years and above age group as the rate of CRC in these patients with a family history of CRC is significantly lower than that in the younger age groups with a family history of CRC.