Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2016
CT-Colonography vs. Colonoscopy for Detection of High-Risk Sessile Serrated Polyps.
Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review.Gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The British journal of radiology · 2020Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Guideline
- Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial.European radiology · 2019Trial
- Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs.Radiology · 2018Trial
- Computed Tomography Colonography vs Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance After Surgery.Gastroenterology · 2018Trial
- Diagnostic Significance of Ki-67, p53, and Mucin Glycoprotein Expression in Colorectal Serrated Lesions: Further Immunohistochemical Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comprehensive evaluation and progress of colorectal cancer screening methods.Gut pathogens · 2025Review
- Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
- Would initiating colorectal cancer screening from age of 45 be cost-effective in Germany? An individual-level simulation analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Robotic Colonoscopy and Beyond: Insights into Modern Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Sessile serrated lesion detection rates continue to increase: 2008-2020.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Can Computed Tomography Colonography Replace Optical Colonoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Lesions?: State of the Art.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
- Clinical significance of microRNA-1180-3p for colorectal cancer and effect of its alteration on cell function.Bioengineered · 2021Article
- Screening for Colorectal Cancer Leading into a New Decade: The "Roaring '20s" for Epigenetic Biomarkers?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Almost One-Third of Large Sessile Serrated Polyps Are Missed on CT Colonography.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Review
- The histomorphological and molecular landscape of colorectal adenomas and serrated lesions.Pathologica · 2021Review
- Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature.Endoscopy international open · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSessile serrated polyps (SSPs) are suggested to be the precursors of 15-30% of all colorectal cancers (CRCs). Therefore, CRC screening modalities should also be designed to detect high-risk SSPs. We compared computed tomography colonography (CTC) with colonoscopy-based screening for the detection of high-risk SSPs in average-risk individuals.
methodsData from a randomized controlled trial that compared CTC with colonoscopy for population screening were used for the analysis. Individuals diagnosed at CTC with a lesion ≥10 mm in size were referred for colonoscopy. Individuals with only 6-9 mm lesions were offered surveillance CTC. This surveillance CTC was followed by a colonoscopy when a lesion ≥6 mm was detected. Yield of both was accumulated to mimic current American College of Radiology CTC referral strategy (referral of individuals with any lesion ≥6 mm). Per participant detection of ≥1 high-risk (dysplastic and/or ≥10 mm) SSP was compared with colonoscopy using multiple logistic regression analysis.
resultsIn total, 8,844 individuals were invited to participate (in 2:1 allocation), of which 1,276 colonoscopy and 982 CTC invitees participated in the study. In the colonoscopy arm, 4.3% of individuals were diagnosed with ≥1 high-risk SSP, compared with 0.8% in the CTC arm (odds ratio (OR) 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6-11.6; P<0.001). In total, 3.1% of individuals in the colonoscopy arm were diagnosed with high-risk SSPs as most advanced lesion, compared with 0.4% in the CTC arm (OR 7.7; 95% CI 2.7-21.6; P<0.001). The current CTC strategy showed a marked lower detection for especially flat high-risk SSPs (17 vs. 0), high-risk SSP located in the proximal colon (32 vs. 1), and SSPs with dysplasia (30 vs. 1).
conclusionsIn a randomized controlled setting, the detection rate of high-risk SSPs was significantly higher with colonoscopy than CTC. These results might have implications for CTC as a CRC modality for opportunistic screening in average-risk adults.
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.