Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30285063›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2018

Postoperative Outcomes of Screen-Detected vs Non-Screen-Detected Colorectal Cancer in the Netherlands.

Michael P M de Neree Tot Babberich, Nina C A Vermeer, Michel W J M Wouters, Wilhelmina M U van Grevenstein, Koen C M J Peeters, Evelien Dekker, Pieter J Tanis, Dutch ColoRectal Audit

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient and tumour characteristics of screening-age adults diagnosed with screen-detected versus symptomatic colon cancer.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Trends in risk factors of anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer surgery (2011-2019): A Dutch population-based study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. A 10-Year Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes After Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Surgery: a Dutch Population-Based Study.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michael P M de Neree Tot BabberichDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nina C A VermeerDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Michel W J M WoutersScientific Bureau of the Dutch Institute of Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Wilhelmina M U van GrevensteinDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Koen C M J PeetersDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Evelien DekkerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Pieter J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dutch ColoRectal Audit
Academic Medical Center · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLDutch Institute for Clinical Auditing · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The nationwide fecal immunochemical test-based screening program has influenced surgical care for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Netherlands, although these implications have not been studied in much detail so far. Objective: To compare surgical outcomes of patients diagnosed as having CRC through the fecal immunochemical test-based screening program (screen detected) and patients with non-screen-detected CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based comparative cohort study using the Dutch ColoRectal Audit and analyzed all Dutch hospitals performing CRC resections. Patients who underwent elective resection for CRC between January 2011 to December 2016 were included. Interventions: Colorectal cancer surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative nonsurgical complications, postoperative surgical complications, postoperative 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and complicated course (postoperative complication resulting in a hospital stay >14 days and/or a reintervention and/or mortality). A risk-stratified comparison was made for different postoperative outcomes based on screening status (screen detected vs not screen detected), cancer stage (I-IV), and for cancer stage I to III also on age (aged ≤70 years and >70 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (I-II and III-IV). To determine any residual case-mix-corrected differences in outcomes between patients with screen-detected and non-screen-detected cancer, univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: In total, 36 242 patients with colon cancer and 17 416 patients with rectal cancer were included for analysis. Compared with patients with non-screen-detected CRC, screen-detected patients were younger (mean [SD] age, 68 [5] vs 70 [11] years), more often men (3777 [60%] vs 13 506 [57%]), and had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists score (American Society of Anesthesiologists score III+: 838 [13%] vs 5529 [23%]). Patients with stage I to III colon cancer who were screen detected had a significantly lower mortality and complicated course rate compared with non-screen-detected patients. For patients with rectal cancer, only a significant difference was found in mortality rate in patients with a cancer stage IV disease, which was higher in the screen-detected group. Compared with non-screen-detected colon cancer, an independent association was found for screen-detected colon cancer on nonsurgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91), surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.89), and complicated course (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). Screen-detected rectal cancer had significantly higher odds on mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: Postoperative outcomes were significantly better for patients with colon cancer referred through the fecal immunochemical test-based screening program compared with non-screen-detected patients. These differences were not found in patients with rectal cancer. The outcomes of patients with screen-detected colon cancer were still better after an extensive case-mix correction, implying additional underlying factors favoring patients referred for surgery through the screening program.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFecesFemaleHospital MortalityHumansLength of StayLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPostoperative ComplicationsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID30285063
PMCPMC6583019
OpenAlexW2895742557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.