Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world and one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. It begins in the colon or rectum and is often highly treatable if it is found early.
Unfortunately, many people are diagnosed only after the disease has already spread, when treatment becomes much more difficult. Researchers are now searching for easier and more accurate ways to detect colorectal cancer before symptoms appear.
A new review published in Clinica Chimica Acta suggests that simple blood or stool tests based on liquid biomarkers could dramatically improve the way colorectal cancer is detected, diagnosed, and monitored.
The review examined research published between 2010 and 2025 and was based on studies collected from major scientific databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.
Today, the most common screening methods include colonoscopy and stool-based tests. Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard because doctors can directly examine the bowel and remove suspicious growths during the procedure.
However, many people avoid colonoscopy because it requires bowel preparation, sedation, and an invasive examination. Stool tests are easier but depend on people completing them regularly and may not detect every cancer.
Scientists believe liquid biomarkers may offer a better solution. Biomarkers are measurable substances in the body that can signal the presence of disease. Some can be detected in blood or stool samples without surgery or tissue biopsies. This makes testing much less invasive and potentially more acceptable to patients.
The review highlights several promising biomarkers. One is circulating tumor DNA, or ctDNA, which consists of tiny fragments of DNA released into the bloodstream by cancer cells.
Another is microRNA, small molecules that help control gene activity and may change when cancer develops. Researchers are also studying proteins, metabolites, gut bacteria, genetic changes, and epigenetic markers that may reveal the earliest signs of colorectal cancer.
Advances in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, microbiome research, and other modern technologies are allowing scientists to combine many different biomarkers to improve accuracy. Instead of relying on a single test, future screening may use several biological signals together to identify people who need further investigation.
Early detection is extremely important. People diagnosed while colorectal cancer remains confined to the bowel have survival rates exceeding 90 percent. Once the disease spreads to distant organs, survival falls below 15 percent. Better screening could therefore save many lives by identifying cancer before it advances.
The review also points out that colorectal cancer cases are expected to increase because of population aging, obesity, physical inactivity, urban lifestyles, and greater consumption of red and processed meat. Developing easier screening tests may encourage more people to participate in regular screening programs.
Although these biomarker tests are very promising, most are still being evaluated before becoming routine clinical practice. Large clinical studies are needed to confirm their accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and benefits in everyday healthcare.
The review was published in Clinica Chimica Acta.
Overall, the evidence suggests liquid biomarkers may become one of the biggest advances in colorectal cancer screening in the coming years. As this was a review rather than a new clinical trial, the conclusions depend on previously published studies.
Even so, the review provides a strong overview of the field and shows that combining multiple biomarkers could move cancer diagnosis toward faster, earlier, and more personalized care.
If you care about cancer, please read studies that low-carb diet could increase overall cancer risk, and new way to increase the longevity of cancer survivors.
For more health information, please see recent studies about how to fight cancer with these anti-cancer superfoods, and results showing daily vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce cancer death risk.
Source: Review authors.
