Trial reportTrials2013
Screening for colorectal cancer with FOBT, virtual colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in the Florence district (SAVE study).
Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01651624 (Comparison Between Faecal Occult Blood Test), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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.
Comparison Between Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT), Computed Tomographic Colonography (CTC) With Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) and Colonoscopy as a Primary Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer. Validation of a Teleradiology Model. Biological Banking in Subjects Recruited for Colonoscopy or CTC.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Colonoscopy Reduces Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Patients With Non-Malignant Findings: A Meta-Analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Pooled it
- Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial.European radiology · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Colonoscopic screening is associated with reduced Colorectal Cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
- CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials.The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Computed tomography colonography for the practicing radiologist: A review of current recommendations on methodology and clinical indications.World journal of radiology · 2016Review
- ESR Position Paper on Imaging Biobanks.Insights into imaging · 2015Article
- Familial colorectal cancer screening: When and what to do?World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives.Frontiers in public health · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the most frequent cancer in Europe. Randomized clinical trials demonstrated that screening with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) reduces mortality from CRC. Accordingly, the European Community currently recommends population-based screening with FOBT. Other screening tests, such as computed tomography colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC), are highly accurate for examining the entire colon for adenomas and CRC. Acceptability represents a critical determinant of the impact of a screening program. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare participation rate and diagnostic yield of FOBT, CTC with computer-aided diagnosis, and OC as primary tests for population-based screening. METHODS/
designA total of 14,000 subjects aged 55 to 64 years, living in the Florence district and never screened for CRC, will be randomized in three arms: group 1 (5,000 persons) invited to undergo CTC (divided into: subgroup 1A with reduced cathartic preparation and subgroup 1B with standard bowel preparation); group 2 (8,000 persons) invited to undergo a biannual FOBT for three rounds; and group 3 (1,000 persons) invited to undergo OC. Subjects of each group will be invited by mail to undergo the selected test. All subjects with a positive FOBT or CTC test (that is, mass or at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm) will be invited to undergo a second-level OC. Primary objectives of the study are to compare the participation rate to FOBT, CTC and OC; to compare the detection rate for cancer or advanced adenomas of CTC versus three rounds of biannual FOBT; to evaluate referral rate for OC induced by primary CTC versus three rounds of FOBT; and to estimate costs of the three screening strategies. A secondary objective of the study is to create a biological bank of blood and stool specimens from subjects undergoing CTC and OC. DISCUSSION: This study will provide information about participation/acceptability, diagnostic yield and costs of screening with CTC in comparison with the recommended test (FOBT) and OC.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01651624.
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.