ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2018
Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Cohort Before and After the Change of Fecal Occult Blood Test in a French Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2021Pooled it
- Supply and quality of colonoscopy according to the characteristics of gastroenterologists in the French population-based colorectal-cancer screening program.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Prediction of the severity of colorectal lesion by fecal hemoglobin concentration observed during previous test in the French screening program.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Colorectal cancer fecal screening test completion after age 74, sources and outcomes in French program.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the change in the participation rate and the change in neoplasia incidence before and after the change of the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) in the cohort included in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (CRCSP).
methodsCohort of 279,210 people, aged 50-74 years, invited at least once before 2009, to participate in a CRCSP campaign. The participation rate and the cumulative neoplasia incidence were described on 4 campaigns (≤2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012 and 2013-2014) with a Guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) and a first campaign (2015-2016) with a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT). The cumulative incidence was estimated by the actuarial method and its confidence interval by the Greenwood method.
resultsThe participation rate decreased from 32.7% (first gFOBT-campaign) to 24.4% (fourth gFOBT-campaign) then, made a significant bound in the FIT-campaign (28.4%; p < 0.001). 35.4% of the 965 high-risk-polyps screened in this cohort were detected in the FIT-campaign. CRC incidence gradually decreased from 0.4 to 0.1/1000 person-years from the first to the fourth gFOBT-campaign before reaching a bound to 0.4/1000 person-years in the FIT-campaign.
conclusionAlthough it was still below the minimum European target (45%), the participation rate has increased between the last gFOBT-campaign and FIT-campaign, justifying the impact of promotional campaigns and the acceptance of the new test by people and GPs. A decline in the neoplasia incidence was observed between the initial and the fourth gFOBT-campaign. The change from gFOBT to FIT between the fourth and fifth campaigns, was associated with a significant increase in detection of neoplasia.
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.