Trial reportTrials2014
Population screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01739608 (Assessment of the Participation Rate and the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Assessment of the Participation Rate and the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: CT Colonography Versus Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. Evaluation of a New Model Based on Telediagnosis
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- 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
- 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening at around the age of 60 years prevents about one-third of CRC cases. However, FS screens only the distal colon, and thus mortality from proximal CRC is unaffected. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly accurate examination that allows assessment of the entire colon. However, the benefit of CTC testing as a CRC screening test is uncertain. We designed a randomized trial to compare participation rate, detection rates, and costs between CTC (with computer-aided detection) and FS as primary tests for population-based screening. METHODS/
designAn invitation letter to participate in a randomized screening trial comparing CTC versus FS will be mailed to a sample of 20,000 people aged 58 or 60 years, living in the Piedmont region and the Verona district of Italy. Individuals with a history of CRC, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or recent colonoscopy, or with two first-degree relatives with CRC will be excluded from the study by their general practitioners. Individuals responding positively to the invitation letter will be then randomized to the intervention group (CTC) or control group (FS), and scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome parameter of this part of the trial is the difference in advanced neoplasia detection between the two screening tests. Secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness analysis, referral rates for colonoscopy induced by CTC versus FS, and the expected and perceived burden of the procedures. To compare participation rates for CTC versus FS, 2,000 additional eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to receive an invitation for screening with CTC or FS. In the CTC arm, non-responders will be offered fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as alternative screening test, while in the FS arm, non-responders will receive an invitation letter to undergo screening with either FOBT or CTC. Data on reasons for participation and non-participation will also be collected. DISCUSSION: This study will provide reliable information concerning benefits and risks of the adoption of CTC as a mass screening intervention in comparison with FS. The trial will also evaluate the role of computer-aided detection in a screening setting.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739608.
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.