SynthesisGastroenterology2022
Clinical and Genomic Characterization of Interval Colorectal Cancer in 3 Prospective Cohorts.
Synthesis in Gastroenterology, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel polyp retrieval bag reduces the polyp fragmentation rate in colon polypectomy: a single-blind randomized controlled study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Trial
- Effect of aqueous extract of seed of broccoli on inflammatory cytokines and Helicobacter pylori infection: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in patients without atrophic gastritis.Inflammopharmacology · 2022Trial
- Clinicopathological and molecular differences between stage IV screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Flemish screening program.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Mortality After Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Characteristics of Interval Colorectal Cancer: A Canadian Retrospective Population-Level Analysis from Newfoundland and Labrador.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsInterval colorectal cancers (CRCs), cancers diagnosed after a screening/surveillance examination in which no cancer is detected, and before the date of next recommended examination, reflect an unprecedented challenge in CRC detection and prevention. To better understand this poorly characterized CRC variant, we examined the clinical and mutational characteristics of interval CRCs in comparison with screen detected CRCs.
methodsWe included 1175 CRCs documented in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial and 3661 CRCs in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). Multivariable Cox models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of death risk. Whole exome sequencing was conducted in 147 PLCO cases and 796 NHS/HPFS cases.
resultsA total of 619 deaths (312 CRC-specific) and 2404 deaths (1904 CRC-specific) were confirmed during follow-up of PLCO and NHS/HPFS, respectively. Compared with screen detected CRCs, interval CRCs had a multivariate-adjusted HR (95% CI) of 1.47 (1.21-1.78) for CRC-specific mortality and 1.27 (1.09-1.47) for overall mortality (meta-analysis combining all 3 cohorts). However, we did not observe significant differences in mutational features between interval and screen detected CRCs (false discovery rate adjusted P > .05).
conclusionInterval CRCs had a significantly increased risk of death compared with screen detected CRCs that were not explained by established clinical prognostic factors, including stage at diagnosis. The survival disadvantage of interval CRCs did not appear to be explained by differences in the genomic landscape of tumors characterized by whole exome sequencing.
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.