ReviewInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2020
The Relationship between Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer and Quality Indicators of Colonoscopy: The Latest Single-center Cohort Study with a Review of the Literature.
Review in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI support for colonoscopy quality control using CNN and transformer architectures.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Endoscopic resectionTranslational cancer research · 2024Article
- Importance of preoperative total colonoscopy and endoscopic resection after self-expandable metallic stent placement for obstructive colorectal cancer as a bridge-to-surgery.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- lncRNA pair as candidate diagnostic signature for colorectal cancer based on the within-sample relative expression levels.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Analysis of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer and Its Subtypes in a Screening Programme.Cancers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aims to elucidate the association between the clinical characteristics of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and quality indicators (QIs) of colonoscopy. Methods Patients with PCCRC who underwent total colonoscopy (TCS) and were histologically diagnosed with adenocarcinoma within six months to five years of the last examination were included in this study. PCCRC and normally detected cancer (NDC) identified within the same period were compared in terms of their clinicopathological characteristics. Furthermore, the QIs at PCCRC detection were compared to those at the last examination. Results Patients with PCCRC had a significantly higher rate of colon surgery history than those with NDC (PCCRC: 25/76, 32.9%; NDC: 31/1,437, 2.2%; p<0.001), but the invasion depth in these patients was significantly shallower (PCCRC: ≤Tis/≥T1, 37/39; NDC: ≤Tis/≥T1, 416/1,021; p<0.001). Among patients with PCCRC, the T1b group had significantly more non-polypoid growth (NPG)-type cases than PG-type CRC cases (p=0.018). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of colonoscopists performing TCS was 30.2-52.8%. Furthermore, the ADR of colonoscopists at the time of PCCRC detection (36.7%±5.9%) was significantly higher than that of colonoscopists who performed the last examination (34.9%±4.4%; p=0.034). The withdrawal time for negative colonoscopy (WT-NC) at detection was significantly longer than that at the last examination (at detection: 494.3±253.8 s; at last examination: 579.5±243.6 s; p=0.010). Conclusion Given that these PCCRC cases were post-colon surgery cases, had a long WT-NC, and were detected by colonoscopists with a high ADR, most cases showed lesions that were missed during the previous colonoscopy. Caution should be practiced in order to avoid missing flat, NPG-type tumors.
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.