Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36604640›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2023

Should we screen for colorectal cancer in people aged 75 and over? A systematic review - collaborative work of the French geriatric oncology society (SOFOG) and the French federation of digestive oncology (FFCD).

Lydia Guittet, Valérie Quipourt, Thomas Aparicio, Elisabeth Carola, Jean-François Seitz, Elena Paillaud, Astrid Lievre, Rabia Boulahssass, Carole Vitellius, Leila Bengrine and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors.

Lydia GuittetPublic Health Unit, CHU Caen NormandieNormandie University, UNICAEN, INSERM U1086 ANTICIPE, Caen, France.
Valérie QuipourtGeriatrics Department and Coordination Unit in Oncogeriatry in Burgundy, University Hospital of Dijon, Dijon, France.
Thomas AparicioDepartment of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Saint Louis Hospital, APHP, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Elisabeth CarolaGeriatric Oncology Unit, Groupe Hospitalier Public du Sud de L'Oise, Bd Laennec, 60100, Creil, France.
Jean-François SeitzDepartment of Digestive Oncology & Gastroenterology, CHU Timone, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille (APHM) & Aix-Marseille-Univ, Marseille, France.
Elena PaillaudGeriatric Oncology Unit, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris Cancer Institute CARPEM, inAP-HP, Paris, France.
Astrid LievreDepartment of Gastroenterology, INSERM U1242 "Chemistry Oncogenesis Stress Signaling", University Hospital Pontchaillou, Rennes 1 University, Rennes, FFCD, France.
Rabia BoulahssassGeriatric Coordination Unit for Geriatric Oncology (UCOG), PACA Est CHU de NICE, France; FHU ONCOAGE, Nice, France.
Carole VitelliusHepato-Gastroenterology Department, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France.
Leila BengrineDepartment of Medical Oncology, Georges-Francois Leclerc Centre, Dijon, France.
Florence Canoui-PoitrinePublic Health Unit, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 94000, Créteil, France.
Sylvain ManfrediGastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Unit, University Hospital Dijon, INSERM U123-1 University of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, FFCD (French Federation of Digestive Cancer), Dijon, France. sylvain.manfredi@chu-dijon.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations.

methodsPUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines.

resultsMost benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80-85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case.

conclusionThe current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75-80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyComorbidityEarly Detection of CancerHumansLife ExpectancyMass ScreeningAcceptabilityCost effectivenessHarmsSimulation

Identifiers

PMID36604640
PMCPMC9817257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.