Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32611328›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Impact of the faecal immunochemical test on colorectal cancer survival.

María Angeles Gutierrez-Stampa, Vanessa Aguilar, Cristina Sarasqueta, Joaquín Cubiella, Isabel Portillo, Luis Bujanda

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04821258 (Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effect of the Nutraceutical "MICODIGEST 2.0" on the Complications After Surgery With Curative Intent for Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04821258 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effect of the Nutraceutical "MICODIGEST 2.0" on the Complications After Surgery With Curative Intent for Colorectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundacin Biomedica Galicia SurRan2021 to 2022Enrolled144ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Surgery--ComplicationsArmsMICODIGEST 2.0 supplement, Placebo supplement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Nanotechnology for colorectal cancer detection and treatment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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.

María Angeles Gutierrez-StampaOsakidetza, OSI Donostialdea, Altza Primary Care; Biodonostia Health Research Institute, San Sebastián, Spain.
Vanessa AguilarOsakidetza, OSI Donostialdea, Altza Primary Care; Biodonostia Health Research Institute, San Sebastián, Spain.
Cristina SarasquetaBiodonostia Health Research Institute, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), San Sebastián, Spain.
Joaquín CubiellaGastroenterology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
Isabel PortilloColorectal Cancer Screening Programme, Osakidetza, Basque Health Service, Bilbao, Spain.
Luis BujandaBIOEF: the Basque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research, Department of Gastroenterology, Biodonostia Institute, Avda Paseo Beguiristain s/n 20014, San Sebastián, Spain. medik@telefonica.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is already evidence that the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a useful tool for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) that helps to identify symptomatic patients requiring early colonoscopy. Although the recommendation to use FIT is widely accepted, there are no data concerning whether this strategy improves patient survival.The objective was to assess whether the survival is higher if CRC patients have been first diagnosed by FIT (as compared with the rest of patients with CRC).

methodsWe identified all cases of CRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 in Donostialdea (Spain), excluding all the CRC detected in population screening. We focused on symptomatic patients. One thousand five hundred twenty-seven cases of CRC were divided into two groups based on the route to diagnosis: group 1: individuals who tested positive in a FIT during the year before diagnosis, and group 2: others.Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimation, and with the log-rank test. A Cox regression model was used to adjust for differences between groups due to other variables associated with survival.

resultsOne thousand nine hundred sixty-seven cases of invasive CRC were identified, of which 22.4% were detected in population screening. Of the 1527 cases diagnosed in symptomatic patients, 317 patients had undergone a FIT in the year before the diagnosis of CRC. In 279 cases(18.3%), the result had been positive and this was the first step towards their CRC diagnosis (group 1). Group 2 was composed of the 1248 cases of CRC (81.7%). Considering these cases, 1210 patients with CRC did not undergo any FIT while 38 patients presented a negative result in the year before the diagnosis. The rate of early-stage disease (stage I or II) was higher in group 1 (51.3% vs 45.5% in group 2) (p = 0.04). Furthermore, the 3-year survival was longer in group 1 (72% vs 59% in group 2) (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84).The variables independently associated with worse survival were: group 2, age > 70 years and stage at the moment of diagnosis.

conclusionsThe use of FIT as a diagnostic strategy in symptomatic patients may improve survival in CRC. Nonetheless,FIT is still not widely used in our region.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesSpainColorectal cancerFaecal immunochemical testSurvival

Identifiers

PMID32611328
PMCPMC7328266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.