Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32034490›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2020

Efficacy of screening using annual fecal immunochemical test alone versus combined with one-time colonoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer mortality: the Akita Japan population-based colonoscopy screening trial (Akita pop-colon trial).

Hiroshi Saito, Shin-Ei Kudo, Noriaki Takahashi, Seiichiro Yamamoto, Kenta Kodama, Koichi Nagata, Yuri Mizota, Fumio Ishida, Yasuo Ohashi

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Significance of fecal hemoglobin concentration for predicting risk of colorectal cancer after colonoscopy.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroshi SaitoAomori Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1-1 Higashi-Tsukurimichi, Aomori, 030-8553, Japan. hrsaito@med.pref.aomori.jp.
Shin-Ei KudoDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Noriaki TakahashiDivision of Screening Assessment and Management, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Seiichiro YamamotoCenter for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenta KodamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Japanese Red Cross Fukushima Hospital, Fukushima, Japan.
Koichi NagataCancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuri MizotaCenter for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Fumio IshidaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Yasuo OhashiDepartment of Integrated Science and Engineering for Sustainable Society, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital · JPAomori Prefectural Central Hospital · JPChuo University · JPFukushima Medical University · JP

Funding

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare JP19ck0106279
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeScreening programs using fecal occult blood testing help reduce mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). Colonoscopy and colonoscopy combined with fecal occult blood testing are considered alternatives with higher sensitivity than fecal tests; however, to our knowledge, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) providing such evidence have not been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to compare screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) combined with colonoscopy and FIT alone to evaluate the efficacy of colonoscopy screening in reducing CRC mortality.

methodsThis multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study included average-risk individuals for CRC living in the study areas and aged 40-74 years. The exclusion criteria were history of CRC, hereditary non-polyposis CRC, familial adenomatous polyposis, inflammatory bowel diseases, history of cancer other than CRC within the past 5 years, and not expected to survive from comorbid illness. The intervention group underwent one-time colonoscopy and annual FIT, while the control group underwent annual FIT. The primary endpoint was mortality from CRC, while the secondary endpoints were cumulative incidence of invasive CRC, advanced CRC (invasion into the muscle layer or deeper), invasive cancer and screening sensitivities and specificities of invasive CRC, whole CRC, advanced neoplasia, and prevalence of adverse events. The intervention and control groups comprised 4876 and 4875 participants, respectively.

conclusionThis explanatory RCT evaluated the efficacy of colonoscopy screening by valid statistical inference based on randomization. Data on adverse events from this kind of screening are necessary when considering implementation of future screening programs.

trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000001980.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerFecesImmunohistochemistryAdultAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedSample SizeStatistics as TopicColonoscopy screeningColorectal cancerFecal immunochemical occult testIncidenceMortalityRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32034490
OpenAlexW3005224586

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.