Trial reportGut2012
Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests.
Trial report in Gut, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04150081 (Endoscopic Versus Surgical Treatment for T1 Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 212 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Endoscopic Versus Surgical Treatment for T1 Colorectal Cancer: a Population-based Cohort Study
Who cites it
212 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic surgery (R-TAMIS): a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Use of artificial intelligence for the prediction of lymph node metastases in early-stage colorectal cancer: systematic review.BJS open · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of the theory of planned behaviour interventions for chronic diseases in low health-literacy settings.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- The value of case reports in rare oncological scenarios: mixed method analysis of colorectal metastases from breast cancer.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2023Pooled it
- The Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Pooled it
- MicroRNA panels as diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Faecal microRNAs as a non-invasive tool in the diagnosis of colonic adenomas and colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Blood-based microRNAs as biomarkers for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2017Pooled it
- Guideline
- Practice parameters for early colon cancer management: Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colo-Rettale; SICCR) guidelines.Techniques in coloproctology · 2015Guideline
- A systematic review regarding the feasibility and safety of endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) for colonic lesions.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Pooled it
- Effect of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on the outcomes of subsequent faecal occult blood test screening.Journal of medical screening · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Eicosapentaenoic acid and aspirin, alone and in combination, for the prevention of colorectal adenomas (seAFOod Polyp Prevention trial): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2018Trial
- Trial
- A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
- Use of a 12 months' self-referral reminder to facilitate uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening in previous non-responders: a London-based feasibility study.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
- Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.Lancet (London, England) · 2016Trial
- Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
- Text Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2016Trial
152 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England began operating in 2006 with the aim of full roll out across England by December 2009. Subjects aged 60-69 are being invited to complete three guaiac faecal occult blood tests (6 windows) every 2 years. The programme aims to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer by 16% in those invited for screening.
methodsAll subjects eligible for screening in the National Health Service in England are included on one database, which is populated from National Health Service registration data covering about 98% of the population of England. This analysis is only of subjects invited to participate in the first (prevalent) round of screening.
resultsBy October 2008 almost 2.1 million had been invited to participate, with tests being returned by 49.6% of men and 54.4% of women invited. Uptake ranged between 55-60% across the four provincial hubs which administer the programme but was lower in the London hub (40%). Of the 1.08 million returning tests 2.5% of men and 1.5% of women had an abnormal test. 17,518 (10,608 M, 6910 F) underwent investigation, with 98% having a colonoscopy as their first investigation. Cancer (n=1772) and higher risk adenomas (n=6543) were found in 11.6% and 43% of men and 7.8% and 29% of women investigated, respectively. 71% of cancers were 'early' (10% polyp cancer, 32% Dukes A, 30% Dukes B) and 77% were left-sided (29% rectal, 45% sigmoid) with only 14% being right-sided compared with expected figures of 67% and 24% for left and right side from UK cancer registration.
conclusionIn this first round of screening in England uptake and fecal occult blood test positivity was in line with that from the pilot and the original European trials. Although there was the expected improvement in cancer stage at diagnosis, the proportion with left-sided cancers was higher than expected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.