ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016
Are there biological differences between screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme?
Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. 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.
- Histopathological characteristics of screen-detected colorectal cancers.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Review
- Screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in England: Associations with lifestyle and other factors in women in a large UK prospective cohort.International journal of cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe measured biomarkers of tumour growth and vascularity in interval and screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRCs) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in order to determine whether rapid tumour growth might contribute to interval CRC (a CRC diagnosed between a negative guaiac stool test and the next scheduled screening episode).
methodsFormalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections from 71 CRCs (screen-detected 43, interval 28) underwent immunohistochemistry for CD31 and Ki-67, in order to measure the microvessel density (MVD) and proliferation index (PI), respectively, as well as microsatellite instability (MSI) testing.
resultsInterval CRCs were larger (P=0.02) and were more likely to exhibit venous invasion (P=0.005) than screen-detected tumours. There was no significant difference in MVD or PI between interval and screen-detected CRCs. More interval CRCs displayed MSI-high (14%) compared with screen-detected tumours (5%). A significantly (P=0.005) higher proportion (51%) of screen-detected CRC resection specimens contained at least one polyp compared with interval CRC (18%) resections.
conclusionsWe found no evidence of biological differences between interval and screen-detected CRCs, consistent with the low sensitivity of guaiac stool testing as the main driver of interval CRC. The contribution of synchronous adenomas to occult blood loss for screening requires further investigation.
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.