Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24674307›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2014

A prospective analysis of false positive events in a National Colon Cancer Surveillance Program.

Knut Magne Augestad, Jan Norum, Johnie Rose, Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00572143 (Should the Surgeon or the General Practitioner), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00572143 nacompletednot on this map

Should the Surgeon or the General Practitioner (GP) Follow up Patients After Surgery for Colon Cancer? A Randomized Controlled Trial Focusing on Quality of Life, Cost-effectiveness and Serious Clinical Events.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital of North NorwayRan2007 to 2013Enrolled180ConditionsColon CancerArmsca coli follow-up by GP
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Knut Magne AugestadDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. knut.magne.augestad@telemed.no.
Jan Norum
Johnie Rose
Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo
University of Oslo · NOCase Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity Hospitals Case Medical Center · US

Funding

TUMOR METABOLISM PROGRAMP30CA043703 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI Amar Desai · 1987 to 2026
$142.3M
NCI NIH HHS 5P30 CA043703-21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe survival benefits of colon cancer surveillance programs are well delineated, but less is known about the magnitude of false positive testing. The objective of this study was to estimate the false positive rate and positive predictive value of testing as part of a surveillance program based on national guidelines, and to estimate the degree of testing and resource use needed to identify a curable recurrence.

methodsAnalysis of clinically significant events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, false positive events, true cancer recurrences, time to confirmation of diagnosis, and resource use (radiology, blood samples, colonoscopies, consultations) among patients included in a randomised colon cancer surveillance trial.

results110 patients surgically treated for colon cancer were followed according to national guidelines for 1884 surveillance months. 1105 tests (503 blood samples, 278 chest x-rays, 209 liver ultrasounds, 115 colonoscopies) and 1186 health care consultations were performed. Of the 48 events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, 34 (71%) represented false positives. Thirty-one (65%) were initiated by new symptoms, and 17 (35%) were initiated by test results. Fourteen patients had true cancer recurrence; 7 resections of recurrent disease were performed, 4 of which were successful R0 metastasis Resections. 276 tests and 296 healthcare consultations were needed per R0 resection; the cost per R0 surgery was £ 103207. There was a 29% probability (positive predictive value) of recurrent cancer when a diagnostic work-up was initiated based on surveillance testing or patient complaints.

conclusionWe observed a high false positive rate and low positive predictive value for significant clinical events suggestive of possible colorectal cancer relapse in the setting of a post-treatment surveillance program based on national guidelines. Providers and their patients should have an appreciation for the modest positive predictive value inherent in colorectal cancer surveillance programs in order to make informed choices, which maximize quality of life during survivorship. Better means of tailoring surveillance programs based on patient risk would likely lead to more effective and cost-effective post-treatment follow-up.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143. Date of trial registration: 11th of December 2007.

Indexed as

AgedColonic NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNorwayPopulation SurveillancePredictive Value of TestsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID24674307
PMCPMC3978079
OpenAlexW2171329689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.