ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2013
22-year longitudinal study of repetitive colonoscopy in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Article
- Risk factors for colorectal neoplasms based on colonoscopy and pathological diagnoses of Chinese citizens: a multicenter, case-control study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Article
- Predicting the risk of recurrent adenoma and incident colorectal cancer based on findings of the baseline colonoscopy.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe report the outcomes of a long-term surveillance programme for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer.
methodsThe details of patients undergoing a colonoscopy having been referred on the basis of family history of colorectal cancer were entered prospectively into a database. Further colonoscopy was arranged on the basis of the findings. The outcomes assessed included incidence of cancer and adenoma identification at initial and subsequent colonoscopy.
resultsThe records of 2,293 patients (917 men; median patient age: 51 years) were entered over 22 years, giving data on 3,982 colonoscopies. Eight adverse events (0.2%) were recorded. Twenty-seven cancers were found at first colonoscopy and thirteen developed during the follow-up period. There were significantly more cancers identified in those with more than one first-degree relative with cancer than in other groups (p=0.01). The number of adenomas identified at subsequent surveillance colonoscopies remained constant with between 9.3% and 12.0% of patients having adenomas that were removed. Two-thirds (68%) of patients with cancer and three-quarters (77%) with adenomas fell outside the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2006 guidelines.
conclusionsRepeated colonoscopy continues to yield significant pathology including new cancers. These continue to occur despite removal of adenomas at prior colonoscopies. The majority of patients with cancers and adenomas fell outside the BSG 2006 guidelines; more would have fallen outside the 2010 guidelines.
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.