ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2017
CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines.
Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guideline
- Evidenced-Based Screening Strategies for a Positive Family History.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purposes of this study were to compare rates of lesion detection at CT colonographic (CTC) screening of adults without symptoms who had and who did not have a family history of colorectal cancer according to American Cancer Society guidelines and to consider the clinical implications. MATERIALS AND
methodsOver 134 months, consecutively registered CTC cohorts of adults without symptoms who had (n = 156; 88 [56.4%] women; 68 [43.6%] men; mean age, 56.3 years) and who did not have (n = 8857; 4757 [53.7%] women; 4100 [46.3%] men; mean age, 56.6 years) an American Cancer Society-defined family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative with diagnosis before age 60 years or two first-degree relatives with diagnosis at any age) were compared for relevant colorectal findings.
resultsFor the family history versus no family history cohorts, the frequency of all nondiminutive polyps (≥ 6 mm) reported at CTC was 23.7% versus 15.5% (p = 0.007); small polyps (6-9 mm), 13.5% versus 9.1% (p = 0.068); and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), 10.2% versus 6.5% (p = 0.068). The rate of referral for colonoscopy was greater for the family history cohort (16.0% vs 10.5%; p = 0.035). However, the frequencies of proven advanced adenoma (4.5% vs 3.2%; p = 0.357), nonadvanced adenoma (5.1% vs 2.6%; p = 0.070), and cancer (0.0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.999) were not significantly increased. The difference in positive rates between the two cohorts (11.5% vs 4.3%; p < 0.001) was primarily due to nonneoplastic findings of no colorectal cancer relevance, such as small hyperplastic polyps, diverticular disease, and false-positive CTC findings.
conclusionAlthough the overall CTC-positive and colonoscopy referral rates were higher in the family history cohort, the clinically relevant frequencies of advanced neoplasia and cancer were not sufficiently increased to preclude CTC screening. These findings support the use of CTC as a front-line screening option in adults with a family history of colorectal cancer.
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.