Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34011594›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Priority stratification for colonoscopy based on two-sample faecal immunochemical test screening: results from a cross-sectional study at an endoscopy clinic in Japan.

Osamu Toyoshima, Yutaka Yamaji, Toshihiro Nishizawa, Shuntaro Yoshida, Tomoharu Yamada, Ken Kurokawa, Miho Obata, Ryo Kondo, Masahito Toba, Kazuhiko Koike

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Osamu ToyoshimaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan t@ichou.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6953-6079
Yutaka YamajiHealth Development Center, Tokyo Pharmaceutical Industry Health Insurance Society, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9445-0747
Toshihiro NishizawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuntaro YoshidaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9437-9132
Tomoharu YamadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Ken KurokawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Miho ObataDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryo KondoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Masahito TobaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toba Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Kazuhiko KoikeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
National Sanatorium Ooshima Seishōen · JPFutaba clinic · JPThe University of Tokyo · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLittle has been reported on the yield and characteristics of colorectal neoplasia detected by the two-sample faecal immunochemical test (FIT), particularly the difference between subjects with two-positive results on the two-sample FIT and those with one-positive results. We aimed to assess risk stratification among patients with positive two-sample FIT to prioritise colonoscopy.

designA retrospective cross-sectional study.

settingA single-centre, representative endoscopy clinic in Japan.

participantsConsecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled. Indications for colonoscopy included two-positive results on the two-sample FIT (FIT (+/+)), one-positive results on the two-sample FIT (FIT (+/-)), and other reasons (non-FIT group, including presence of symptoms, screening or surveillance). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were detection rates of colorectal cancers, including in situ (all cancers) and invasive cancers, based on the indications for colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were cancer features, such as location, size, T stage and histological subtype.

resultsOf the 8724 patients, 264 underwent colonoscopy following FIT (+/+), 1018 following FIT (+/-) and 7442 for reasons other than positive FIT. Detection rates of all (and invasive) cancers in the FIT (+/+), FIT (+/-) and non-FIT groups were 12.1% (8.3%), 1.9% (0.3%) and 0.4% (0.2%), respectively. The cancer detection rates were much higher in the FIT (+/+) group than in the FIT (+/-) group, which in turn had higher rates than the non-FIT group. Moreover, the FIT (+/+) group showed more advanced T stages on tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) classification (Tis/T1/T2/T3/T4: 10/7/4/10/1) than the FIT (+/-) group (16/1/2/0/0, p<0.001).

conclusionsTwo-positive results for two-sample FIT showed a much higher yield for more advanced colorectal cancers than the one-positive result. High priority for diagnostic colonoscopy should be assigned to patients with two-positive-FIT results.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerColonoscopyCross-Sectional StudiesFecesHumansJapanMass ScreeningOccult BloodRetrospective Studiesendoscopygastroenterologygastrointestinal tumourspreventive medicineprotocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID34011594
PMCPMC8137156
OpenAlexW3162489134

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.