Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2026 Apr 13:S1542-3565(26)00247-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2026.03.035. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:41985774 | DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2026.03.035

The post Update of geospatial clusters of colorectal cancer in the US to prioritize screening interventions – What has changed? appeared first on FightCRC.

Because of Natera‘s generosity, this year advocate Kyle David was able to attend Call-on Congress in Washington D.C.! Kyle is a stage IV colon cancer survivor and author who was empowered to share his story and advocate for change with his members of Congress.
Sponsors like Natera are what make this life-changing work possible.

Read more about Kyle here.

When asked to share his experience about Call-on Congress, Kyle had this to say:

Beyond the Sidelines

I didn’t come to Washington, D.C. to observe.

I came as myself. 

Someone in the middle of the fight, still showing up.

On February 3, 2026, I underwent a critical liver ablation, another moment in a journey that has taken more than I ever expected.

And still… I walked into Call-on Congress 2026 with Fight Colorectal Cancer.

Not because I felt ready.

But because I refuse to sit on the sidelines of my own future.

And the truth is…This isn’t just my fight.

Because colorectal cancer today doesn’t look the way people think it does.

It’s not “later in life.”

It’s not rare.

It’s not something happening somewhere else.

It’s here. It’s now.

It’s the mom trying to hold it together for her kids.

The dad navigating decisions he never thought he’d have to make.

The couple learning how to be strong for each other in ways no one prepares you for.

The caregivers carrying more than anyone sees.

Even the pets who never leave our side when the world feels uncertain.

This touches all of us.

Hill Day

Hill Day wasn’t about politics for me.

It was about people.

Walking into those rooms, I felt something deeper than advocacy, a connection.

A thread that runs through all of us.

Call it purpose. Call it responsibility.

For me, it felt like a crimson thread. Linking every story, every loss, every person who has ever been touched by this disease.

I carried the voices of the advocates we lost in 2025, people who showed up for me when I didn’t have the strength to show up for myself. People who should still be here.

That doesn’t leave you. It sharpens you!

Being in conversations alongside organizations like Natera, and hearing from people who have dedicated their careers to supporting patients, reminded me of something powerful:

The innovation is here, the commitment is here.

But the gap?

It’s in the funding.

It’s in making sure access reaches every person who needs it.

Because colorectal cancer is no joke.

And no one no matter where they live, who they love, or what their life looks like, should ever feel like just another case sitting on an oncologist’s desk.

We are not numbers.We are not files.

We are people. And every story deserves to be heard.

If You’re Hesitating: This Is Your Sign

If you’re unsure about attending a future Call-on Congress, hear this:

There is space for you in that room.

Not just for experts.

Not just for seasoned advocates.

For you.

Whether you’re newly diagnosed, supporting someone you love, or still trying to make sense of it all, your voice matters.

You don’t need perfect words.

You don’t need a polished story.

You just need to show up.

Because this space is about being seen.

And making sure others are seen too.

What This Changed For Me

I used to think advocacy was about telling my story.

Now I know, it’s about carrying it with purpose.

It’s about stepping into rooms where decisions are made and making sure the reality of this disease is felt, not just understood.

It’s about honoring that thread that connects all of us

and refusing to let it break.

Beyond the Storm

This cancer has taken a lot from me.

But it hasn’t taken my ability to show up.

And it hasn’t taken my ability to stand beside others and say:

You are not alone in this! 

Because when we come together. Real, open, and willing to be seen something shifts.

We move forward.

Beyond the fear.

Beyond the labels.

Beyond the idea that we’re just patients.

Beyond the storm.

This isn’t just advocacy.

This is about all of us. 

Being seen.

Being heard.

And making sure every voice matters.

Show up. Your story matters more than you think! 

With love and Strength, 

Kyle David 

The post How sponsors like Natera empower our advocates appeared first on FightCRC.

IGIE. 2025 Dec 26;5(1):37-40.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.igie.2025.12.006. eCollection 2026 Mar.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interventional gastroenterologists typically perform colonoscopies at lower volumes than general gastroenterologists, and we sought to determine whether this disparity affects their overall adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Our study aimed to identify any difference in ADR between interventional gastroenterologists and general gastroenterologists.

METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from January 2020 to January 2023 was performed to determine ADRs for interventional gastroenterologists and general gastroenterologists at a single academic tertiary care center, as well as assessing for other quality indicators of screening colonoscopy.

RESULTS: We reviewed 9755 screening colonoscopies. On univariate analysis, ADR differed between groups (46.9% vs 41.5%, P = .033), but on multivariate analysis, provider type was not associated with ADR (odds ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.22; P = .919).

CONCLUSIONS: ADR was similar between interventional and general gastroenterologists after adjustment for patient characteristics, supporting inclusion of interventional gastroenterologists in colorectal cancer screening practices.

PMID:41969783 | PMC:PMC13064458 | DOI:10.1016/j.igie.2025.12.006

The post Adenoma detection rates during screening colonoscopy performed by interventional gastroenterologists and general gastroenterologists appeared first on FightCRC.

JAMA. 2026 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2026.3414. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk among older adults with prior adenoma is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate cumulative CRC risks, non-CRC mortality, and all-cause mortality among adults 75 years of age or older with vs without adenoma at prior colonoscopy (in the latter of whom, guidelines recommend against repeat colonoscopy screening).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of older adults who underwent colonoscopy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2019, and prior to 75 years of age within the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

EXPOSURES: Colonoscopy with vs without adenoma prior to 75 years of age.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated cumulative incidence of CRC, CRC death, non-CRC death, and all-cause mortality for individuals with vs without adenoma at prior colonoscopy (incidence of CRC and CRC death were compared using the Gray test). For those with adenoma, incidence of CRC and non-CRC death were stratified based on 5 Veterans Affairs Frailty Index categories of increasing all-cause mortality risk (nonfrail, ≤0.10; prefrail, 0.11-0.20; mild frailty, 0.21-0.30; moderate frailty, 0.31-0.40; and severe frailty, >0.40).

RESULTS: Of 91 952 individuals (median age, 71 [IQR, 69-73] years at last colonoscopy; 98% male) who had undergone colonoscopy prior to 75 years of age, there were 25 538 (27.8%) with adenoma vs 66 414 (72.2%) without adenoma. At 10-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of CRC was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%) in those with adenoma vs 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%) in those without adenoma (Gray test P < .001). At 10-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of CRC death was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.7%) in those with adenoma vs 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%) in those without adenoma (Gray test P = .005). The cumulative incidence of non-CRC death ranged from 46.9% to 48.4% at 10 years. For those with adenoma, incidence of CRC was substantially exceeded by the cumulative incidence of non-CRC death at 10-year follow-up across all frailty levels (ranged from 34.2% among nonfrail individuals to 82.0% among severely frail individuals).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Adults 75 years of age or older with adenoma at prior colonoscopy were more likely to experience subsequent CRC and CRC death compared with those without adenoma, but cumulative risks were low and were far exceeded by competing risks for non-CRC death. Older adults may consider deprioritizing surveillance colonoscopy relative to other health concerns.

PMID:41954928 | DOI:10.1001/jama.2026.3414

The post Colorectal Cancer and Mortality Risk Among Older Adults With vs Without Adenoma on Prior Colonoscopy appeared first on FightCRC.

Written by: Caroline Motycka, Fight CRC Community Engagement Manager and stage IV survivor

Ten years of surviving the unsurvivable. 

Ten years of chemo chairs, IV poles, side effects, and waiting rooms. Ten years of procedures and surgeries. Ten years of scans that have never quite gotten easier. Ten years of holding my breath before the results. Ten years of learning the language of labs and lesions, statistics, data, and likelihoods. Ten years of fighting for more time with my children and my family. Ten years of losing pieces of my old life — and learning how to live inside a new one. 

Ten years of managing fear in the quiet spaces no one else sees. Ten years of smiling through events and watching life move forward while carrying the weight of uncertainty. Ten years of redefining strength — not as invincibility, but as showing up anyway. Ten years of asking hard questions, making impossible decisions, and trusting a physician-driven team with my life. Ten years of scars — visible and invisible. Ten years of fatigue that lingers and resilience that refuses to leave. Ten years of discovering that survival is not just physical — it is emotional, relational, and spiritual. Ten years of becoming someone I never planned to be, but someone I am fiercely proud of becoming. 

Ten years of surviving while others didn’t. 

Surviving when others didn’t is not simple. It does not sit neatly; there is no clean relief. It is a complicated joy. It is grief woven into gratitude. It is remembering hospital rooms and unfinished conversations. It is thinking about birthdays that should have been celebrated and ordinary weekends that should have kept coming. It is carrying names in my heart so tightly that sometimes it feels like they are stitched there. 

It is remembering the sound of their laughter. The lines in their smile. The way they texted. The way they showed up for other people even when they were tired. It is remembering the last hug, not knowing it would be the last. The hope in their voice when they talked about “next year.” The plans that were made in faith. The courage they carried into life. The strength they showed in moments that should have broken them. 

It is remembering the small, sacred details — their favorite song, the way they joked, the look they gave when they were being stubborn or brave, the ideals they lived by – love your people well, show up even when it’s hard, fight for more time, leave things better than you found them. It is remembering sitting beside them and promising we would keep fighting. It is remembering what they taught me about love, about resilience, about what really matters. 

And sometimes, in the quiet, when the house is still and the world has gone to sleep, I still ask the question no one can truly answer: Why am I still here? 

Survivorship is layered. It is tender. It is sacred. And it is complicated in ways only those of us who walk it can truly understand. 

Grief does not end when treatment ends. It settles in. It grows roots. Each milestone I reach feels both of triumph and a reminder of who is missing beside me. I celebrate — and I remember. I move forward — and I carry it backward with me. I laugh — and later I cry. Both are true. Both belong. 

Surviving is hard. Grief is profound. 

There is a temptation to push grief away — to silence it, to tuck it behind resilience, to wear strength like armor. But when I allow grief in — instead of pushing it away — it becomes something powerful. It fuels courage. It gives my advocacy depth. It reminds me why the work is urgent. It sharpens my voice and clarifies my purpose, transforming pain into something that moves mountains. 

For me, surviving means taking a seat at the table, the very table they once sat— in advocacy meetings, research discussions, policy conversations — and it is not about recognition. It is about representation. I sit there for the love of my life who didn’t make it. I speak up for the parent who ran out of time and for children growing up without a parent. I push for better options because a friend I deeply cared for needed more than what existed. I carry them into rooms they should have been in themselves. I carry their stories, their laughter, their fight, their hope. I don’t have to be loud to take a seat at the table. I don’t have to be polished. I don’t have to have all the answers. I just have to show up. I show up with the names I carry. I show up with the stories that shaped me. I show up with the love that still aches in my chest. 

Taking a seat at the table in their honor does not erase my grief — it transforms it. It says their story still matters. Their life still counts. Their fight was not in vain. It says, I am here — and because I am here, I will do something with it.  

Surviving then becomes more than a chance; it becomes an opportunity. An opportunity to advocate for earlier screening. To demand equitable access. To ensure the next person hears, “We have more options.” To create a world where fewer families say goodbye too soon. 

Surviving when others didn’t will always be complicated. The ache may never fully leave. But when I choose to use my voice, when I choose to step into rooms that once felt intimidating, when I choose to turn grief into action — I am not only surviving. 

I am honoring. 
I am remembering. 
I am building. 

And maybe that is the answer to the question I have asked for ten years. 

Why am I still here? 

I am still here because I have become someone I never planned to be — someone shaped by the storm, softened by grief, strengthened by love. I am still here to carry their names forward. I am still here because there is work to be done. 

And I am still here in the quiet ways, too — in the soft, ordinary moments that once felt uncertain. In the morning sunlight that warms the room. In the sound of laughter that fills a room and makes me pause, just to take it in. In deep breaths after hard anniversaries and milestones that carry both pride and ache. In the tender space where joy and grief sit side by side, neither canceling the other, both reminding me how deeply I have loved and been loved. 

Grief still visits. It shows up in small waves and unexpected tears, in memories that catch in my throat. But it no longer only breaks me — it softens me. It keeps me connected to the people I carry. It reminds me that the ache exists because the love was real. 

Surviving has not made me fearless; it has made me tender. It has taught me that strength and softness can live in the same space. It has shown me that surviving is not about being untouched by pain — it is about choosing, again and again, to stay open to love anyway. It has taught me to choose a connection over fear. To lean into the people at my table instead of pulling away. To say the words. To hold hands. To show up fully, even knowing how fragile it all can be. 

Surviving has made me braver in the ways that matter most — braver in loving deeply, braver in building community, braver in believing that relationships are worth the risk of heartbreak. I no longer measure life by certainty; I measure it by presence. By sharing meals. By laughter that echoes. By conversations that stretch long into the night. 

Fear still whispers; grief will always linger, but love speaks louder. Love is not naive. It is not blind to grief. It simply refuses to let fear have the final word. And every day, I choose love. I choose the people in front of me. I choose the long hugs and the unhurried conversations. I choose to say “I love you” out loud and often. I choose to build memories instead of guarding my heart. I choose the community that has carried me. I choose to invest in relationships that outlast fear. 

Because surviving isn’t just about staying alive — it’s about staying open. It’s about living in a way that honors the love we’ve shared and continue to share, even after loss.  It is how I make sure their lives ripple forward instead of fading quietly. It is how I turn memory into movement and heartbreak into purpose. Staying open means allowing joy to return, even when grief still sits beside it. It means trusting that love is stronger than fear and that connection is stronger than loss. And that choice — to love fully, to connect deeply, to remain hopeful — is the bravest thing I can do for all of us. 

Ten years of surviving the unsurvivable — and I am still here. And I will continue to show up and fight for everyone who deserves more time. 

The post Why am I still here?  appeared first on FightCRC.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2026 Mar 23:djag088. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djag088. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surrogate endpoints are increasingly used as the basis of cancer drug approvals. A strong association between treatment effects on the surrogate and true endpoint is essential for their validation as reliable endpoints. We assess the current evidence of trial-level surrogacy for colorectal cancer (CRC) endpoints through a novel framework.

METHODS: We developed a framework to grade the quality of oncology surrogate endpoints in 7 domains of the surrogate relationship Data source quality (A-B); disease setting homogeneity (0 to 3); uniformness of surrogate and true endpoint definitions (0 to 3); number of trials evaluated (0 to 4); individual (0 to 2) and trial-level associations (0 to 8). We screened PubMed using keywords and MeSH terms for meta-analyses published before 07/06/2024 validating surrogate endpoint associations across CRC trials. Two reviewers blindly assessed each article before reaching a consensus score. The main outcomes were framework-derived evidence scores and reported trial-level associations (R2) with overall survival (OS).

RESULTS: Eighteen articles were identified, containing 39 evaluations of 12 unique surrogate endpoints for OS. Evidence scores ranged from B6-A23. Only disease-free survival (DFS) consistently demonstrated high-quality evidence of trial-level surrogacy (≥A18, median R2 = 0.92). Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were low-quality surrogates in metastatic CRC (PFS B6-A15, median R2 = 0.55; ORR: B6-A13, median R2 = 0.33). Other evaluated endpoints demonstrated as unreliable surrogates.

CONCLUSION: DFS shows high-quality surrogacy in stage II/III colon cancer. Endpoints identified in the metastatic setting demonstrate inconsistent surrogacy evidence. Re-assessment and identification of new endpoints is warranted, particularly with immunotherapy.

PMID:41941600 | DOI:10.1093/jnci/djag088

The post A framework to evaluate surrogate endpoints at the trial level: Analysis in colorectal cancer appeared first on FightCRC.

Gastroenterology. 2026 Apr 1:S0016-5085(26)00303-3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2026.02.047. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer screening reduces mortality, yet uptake remains suboptimal. Various interventions aim to improve screening rates, but their comparative effectiveness is unclear. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening uptake interventions using a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS: We analyzed data from 76 randomized clinical trials across eight intervention strategies: patient navigation, mailed FIT outreach, educational multimedia, reminder-only, choice-based outreach, colonoscopy outreach, multistep, and usual care. Network meta-analysis compared interventions using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P-scores and rankograms assessed intervention rankings. Risk of bias was assessed, and certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE framework.

RESULTS: Patient navigation (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.23-2.02; P-score 0.81) and mailed FIT outreach (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.74; P-score 0.79) were the most effective strategies, significantly outperforming usual care. Educational multimedia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91-1.78) and reminder-only interventions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.57) showed modest effects. Choice-based outreach and colonoscopy outreach were not significantly more effective than usual care. Mailed FIT outreach was superior to colonoscopy outreach (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11-1.63), and patient navigation outperformed reminder-only interventions (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14-1.94). In low baseline uptake settings (<30%), mailed FIT outreach was most effective (RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.70-5.71), while educational multimedia performed best in higher uptake populations (≥30%) and in recent studies (2021-2024). Majority of studies were at low risk of bias while the certainty of evidence mostly ranged from moderate to low.

CONCLUSION: Patient navigation and mailed FIT outreach are the most effective strategies for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake, particularly in low baseline uptake populations. Educational multimedia shows promise in recent years and high baseline uptake settings, offering a scalable alternative.

PMID:41932450 | DOI:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.02.047

The post Interventions for Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis appeared first on FightCRC.

Gastroenterology. 2026 Mar 30:S0016-5085(26)00265-9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2026.02.044. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:41921823 | DOI:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.02.044

The post Metabolomic pattern of ultra-processed food intake and risk of colorectal cancer precursors appeared first on FightCRC.

Advocacy doesn’t start in a policy meeting. It starts with people—ordinary individuals who experience something extraordinary and choose to act.

Each month, we’re shining a light on advocates across the Fight CRC community who are turning personal experiences into meaningful change. These are the voices pushing for better research, stronger policies, and more support for every person affected by colorectal cancer.

This month, we’re honored to feature Alex Glade. Grounded in love for her family and a deep sense of purpose, Alex is transforming loss into action—working to ensure others have more time, more connection, and more hope.

Read more about Alex’s advocacy journey below.

What first got you involved in advocacy and the fight against colorectal cancer?

We took my mom to urgent care in late January 2023, drove her to the Emergency Department the same day, and she was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer. She was in and out of the emergency department and in pain until she passed away less than 80 days later. It was heartbreaking to witness her decline. She meant the world to our family and helped me raise my three kids.

I would say that the pain of losing her was so hard to articulate, and my grief had nowhere to go. I think I reached out to several people, and Brooks Bell shared that FightCRC was doing incredible work and collaboration to support CRC Fighters, survivors, and family members advancing research, policy, and actions to truly make the patient and caregiver experience healthier, more informed, and more supported.

I think I even missed the signup deadline to do Call-on Congress in 2024, but when I reached out, Olivia Henswel was kind enough to welcome me. Everyone at Call-on Congress was so genuinely caring. They truly welcome and empower any community member to find what they want to affect related to the fight.

FightCRC is one of those organizations that has no ego, it’s all about supporting people and making a positive impact. Of all the organizations I’ve worked for or volunteered with, it has been remarkable to see how much FightCRC cares about the mission and all people who are not only affected by CRC but also raising awareness about it (hopefully allowing more people to live fully).

What encouraged you to take your advocacy beyond Call-on Congress?

A few days before my mom passed, I had asked her if she had any wishes or hopes. She said she hoped that nobody would have to experience colorectal cancer. It thrust me into a total reexamination of how I invest the rest of my time on earth and what really matters.

Since then, I have wanted to double down on a few things, being in service to others and to care deeply and enact love for family, friends, and strangers. I’ve tried to better understand how we (as people) learn about our own health and what decisions we can make and when so that people can thrive and live healthier, connected, and purpose-filled lives.

I hoped to make mom’s life story mean something to people outside our family and use it to drive helpful action in the world. She lived a life of service to others and always cared about helping family, friends, and her community. She began her adult life as a teacher, and in a way, sharing her story can continue to educate and motivate others to care for their health in a preventive way while supporting those who are currently impacted by CRC.

It can shift a story of loss and allow my mom’s incredibly loving and caring spirit to continue helping others. I hope that our work could potentially give others more time with their families. My mom fought hard because she loved her family, and time with us was something she cherished. I would hope I could help others indirectly or directly have many more healthy years in which they thrive and ask how they can use their lives to support others.

The post Advocate Highlight appeared first on FightCRC.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2026 Apr 1. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-25-1754. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Red and/or processed meat are established colorectal cancer (CRC) risk factors. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have reported over 200 variants associated with CRC risk. We used functional annotation data to identify subsets of variants within known pathways to construct pathway-based Polygenic Risk Scores (pPRS) to assess interactions with meat intake.

METHODS: A pooled sample of 30,812 cases and 40,504 CRC controls from 27 studies were analyzed. Quantiles for red and processed meat intake were constructed. 204 GWAS variants were annotated to genes with AnnoQ and assessed for overrepresentation in PANTHER-reported pathways. pPRS’s were constructed from significantly overrepresented pathways. Covariate-adjusted logistic regression models evaluated interactions between pPRS and red or processed meat intake in relation to CRC risk.

RESULTS: A total of 30 variants were overrepresented in four pathways: Presenilin-Alzheimer disease, Cadherin/WNT-signaling, Gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor, and TGF-β signaling. We found a significant interaction between TGF-β-pPRS and red meat intake (ORint = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.92-0.98; p = 0.003). When variants in the TGF-β pathway were assessed, we observed significant interactions of red meat with rs2337113 (intron SMAD7 gene, Chr18), and rs2208603 (intergenic region BMP5, Chr6) (p = 0.0005 & 0.036, respectively). There was no evidence of pPRS x red meat interactions for other pathways or with processed meat Conclusions:This pathway-based interaction analysis revealed a statistically significant interaction between variants in the TGF-β pathway and red meat consumption that impacts CRC risk.

IMPACT: These findings shed light into the possible mechanistic link between red meat consumption and CRC risk.

PMID:41920173 | DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-25-1754

The post TGF-beta-pathway-based polygenic risk score modifies the association between red meat intake and colorectal cancer risk: Application of a novel pathway-based PRS method appeared first on FightCRC.