Observational studyTechniques in coloproctology2022
Colorectal cancer outcomes determined by mode of presentation: analysis of population data in England between 2010 and 2014.
Observational study in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Areas of improvement for colorectal cancer screening: Results of a screening initiative for 10,000 health care employees in Austria.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Surgical outcomes and factors associated with postoperative complications of colorectal cancer in a Colombian Caribbean population: Results from a regional referral hospital.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to investigate associations between mode of presentation; categorized as emergency, suspected cancer outpatient referral pathway (2-week wait or 2WW pathway), non-cancer suspected outpatient referral (non-2-week wait pathway) or following screening, and stage of diagnosis and survival in patients with colorectal cancer in England.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort observational study of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 in England using data from Public Health England collated from regional cancer registries.
resultsThe most common route to diagnosis among 167,501 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer was via the non-cancer suspect (non-2WW) outpatient referral pathway (35.1%) followed by the suspected cancer (2WW) referral pathway (31.6%), emergency presentation (22.8%) and most infrequently following screening (10.6%) (p < 0.01). Screening confers the greatest likelihood of early-stage diagnosis (61.6%) compared to other modes of presentation. The 5-year overall survival was 81.8%, 53.3%, 53.0% and 27.6% in those diagnosed via screening, 2WW, non-2WW pathway and emergency presentation, respectively. Patients from most deprived regions were more likely to be diagnosed following emergency presentation (27.7 vs 19.7%, p < 0.01) and less likely via screening (8.1 vs 12%, p < 0.01).
conclusionsAsymptomatic individuals diagnosed following screening have earlier stage cancers and better survival, the opposite was observed in those diagnosed following emergency presentation. Patients referred via the 2WW pathway do not have better survival outcomes when compared to those referred via the non-2WW pathway. In addition, this study has identified socio-economic groups that need to be targeted with public health campaigns to improve screening uptake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35084620What 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.