ArticlePloS one2018
Is increased colorectal screening effective in preventing distant disease?
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of methods to estimate colorectal cancer incidence using population-based cancer registries.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Statistical methods for measuring trends in colorectal cancer incidence in registries: A systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Who, where, when: Colorectal cancer disparities by race and ethnicity, subsite, and stage.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Incidence trends for twelve cancers in younger adults-a rapid review.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Lack of APC somatic mutation is associated with early-onset colorectal cancer in African Americans.Carcinogenesis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreening in the average risk population for colorectal cancer (CRC) is expected to reduce the incidence of distant (i.e., metastatic) CRCs at least as much as less advanced CRCs. Indeed, since 2000, during which time colonoscopy became widely used as a screening tool, the overall incidence of CRC has been reduced by 29%.
objectiveThe purpose of the current study was to determine whether the reduction of incidence rates is the same for all stages of disease.
methodsWe evaluated incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program from 2000-2014 for Localized, Regional, and Distant disease. Joinpoint models were compared to assess parallelism of trends. Data were stratified by race, age, tumor location, and sex to determine whether these subgroupings could explain overall trends.
resultsInconsistent with the expectations of a successful screening program, the reduction in incidence rates of distant CRCs from 2000-2014 has been slower than the reductions in incidence rates of both regional and localized CRCs. This trend is evident even when the data are stratified by age at diagnosis, sex, race, or tumor location.
conclusionsThe slower decrease in the incidence rate of distant disease is not consistent with a screening effect, that is, CRC screening may not be effective in preventing many distant CRCs. As a consequence, distant CRCs represent an increasing fraction of all CRCs, accounting for 21% of all CRCs in 2014. The analysis indicates that inadequate screening does not explain the slower decrease in incidence of distant CRCs. Consequently, we suggest that a subtype of CRC exists that advances rapidly, evading detection because screening intervals are too long to prevent it. Microsatellite unstable tumors represent a known subtype that advances more rapidly, and we suggest that another rapidly advancing subtype very likely exists that is microsatellite stable.
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.