ArticleUpdates in surgery2020
Colorectal cancer-screening program improves both short- and long-term outcomes: a single-center experience in Trieste.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of whole lymph node molecular analysis in colorectal cancer: a prospective multicenter study.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Observational
- Article
- Review
- Using period analysis to timely assess and predict 5-year relative survival for colorectal cancer patients in Taizhou, eastern China.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Involvement in treatment decision-making and self-reported efficacy among patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a nationwide multi-center cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Potential Application of Small Interfering RNA in Gastro-Intestinal Tumors.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Survival and long-term surgical outcomes after colorectal surgery: are there any gender-related differences?Updates in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening programs (SC) have been proven to reduce both incidence and mortality of CRC. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent surgical treatment for CRC between 01/2011 and 01/2017. The current screening program in our region collects patients aged from 50 to 69. For this reason, out of a total of 600 patients, we compared 125 patients with CRC founded during the SC to 162 patients who presented with symptoms and were diagnosed between 50-69 years old (NO-SC). 45% patients in the SC group were diagnosed as AJCC stage I vs 27% patients in the NO-SC group; 14% vs 20% were stage II, 14% vs 26% were stage III, and 3% vs 14% were stage IV (p 0.002). We found a significant difference in surgical approach: 89% SC vs 56% NO-SC patients had laparoscopic surgery (p 0.002). In the NO-SC group, 16% patients underwent resection in an emergency setting. Only 5% patients in the SC group had postoperative complications vs 14% patients in the NO-SC group (p 0.03). We had a 2-year OS of 86%, being 95% in the SC group and 80% in the NO-SC group (p 0.002). Likewise, the whole 2-year DFS was 77%, whereas it was 90% in the SC group and 66% in the NO-SC group (p 0.002). Screening significantly improves early diagnosis and accelerated surgical treatment. We obtained earlier stages at diagnosis, a less invasive surgical approach, and lower rates of complications and emergency surgery, all this leading to an improvement in both OS and DFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31965546What 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.