Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30460999›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of surgery2019

Sex differences in faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer.

L Koskenvuo, N Malila, J Pitkäniemi, J Miettinen, S Heikkinen, V Sallinen

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gender and sex differences in colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L KoskenvuoDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8335-7942
N MalilaFinnish Cancer Registry, Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Helsinki, Finland.
J PitkäniemiFinnish Cancer Registry, Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Helsinki, Finland.
J MiettinenFinnish Cancer Registry, Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Helsinki, Finland.
S HeikkinenFinnish Cancer Registry, Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research, Helsinki, Finland.
V SallinenDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5394-4169
Finnish Cancer Registry · FIUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis analysis of patients in a randomized population-based health services study was done to determine the effects of faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) in outcomes beyond mortality, and to obtain explanations for potential sex differences in screening effectiveness.

methodsIn the Finnish FOBT screening programme (2004-2011), people aged 60-69 years were randomized into the screening and control arms. Differences in incidence, symptoms, tumour location, TNM categories, non-vital outcomes and survival in the screening and control arms were analysed.

resultsFrom 321 311 individuals randomized, 743 patients with screening-detected tumours and 617 control patients with CRC were analysed. CRC was less common in women than in men (0·34 versus 0·50 per cent; risk ratio (RR) 0·82, 95 per cent c.i. 0·74 to 0·91) and women were less often asymptomatic (16·7 versus 22·0 per cent; RR 0·76, 0·61 to 0·93). Women more often had right-sided tumours (32·0 versus 21·3 per cent; RR 1·51, 1·26 to 1·80). Among men with left-sided tumours, those in the screening arm had lower N (RR 1·23, 1·02 to 1·48) and M (RR 1·57, 1·14 to 2·17) categories, as well as a higher overall survival rate than those in the control arm. Furthermore among men with left-sided tumours, non-radical resections (26·2 versus 15·7 per cent; RR 1·67, 1·22 to 2·30) and postoperative chemotherapy sessions (61·6 versus 48·2 per cent; RR 1·28, 1·10 to 1·48) were more frequent in the control arm. Similar benefits of screening were not detected in men with right-sided tumours or in women.

conclusionBiennial FOBT screening seems to be effective in terms of improving several different outcomes in men, but not in women. Differences in incidence, symptoms and tumour location may explain the differences in screening efficacy between sexes.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFinlandHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSex FactorsSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID30460999
PMCPMC6587743
OpenAlexW2901043858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.