Observational studyPloS one2018
Interval colorectal cancer rates after Hemoccult Sensa and survival by detection mode for individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the performance of the Sensa fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in a population-based screening program.
settingManitoba, Canada.
methodsThis historical cohort study included individuals 52 to 74 years of age diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) from 2008 to 2013. CRCs were categorized by detection following a screening program FOBT (Sensa), non-program FOBT (non-Sensa), or no FOBT. Screening program CRCs were classified as program-detected, interval program, or non-compliant. Logistic regression was used to compare characteristics by detection mode. Cox regression adjusted for lead-time was used to examine the effect of detection mode on survival.
results1,498 individuals were diagnosed with CRC; 132 (8.8%) had a screening program FOBT, 626 (41.8%) had a non-program FOBT, and 740 (49.4%) had no FOBT. Of the screening program FOBT CRCs, 72 were program-detected (54.5%), 42 were interval program (31.8%), and 18 were non-compliant (13.6%). Sensa interval cancer rate was 37.4% and sensitivity was 63.1% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 54.3%-72.0%). The risk of death for individuals that had a non-program (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57, 95% CI:0.44-0.75) or a screening program FOBT (HR = 0.55, 95% CI:0.31-0.97) was lower than no FOBT. There was no significant difference in the risk of death for interval, non-compliant, and non-program CRCs compared to program-detected CRCs. Adjusting for lead time bias, sex, income quintile, tumour location, and age at diagnosis did not appreciably change the risk estimates.
conclusionMore than one-third of CRCs may not be detected by Sensa. There may be no difference in survival between CRC detected by Sensa and non-Sensa FOBTs.
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.