Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37599907›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer in the USA: a prospective cohort study.

Markus Dines Knudsen, Kai Wang, Liang Wang, Georgios Polychronidis, Paula Berstad, Kana Wu, Xiaosheng He, Dong Hang, Zhe Fang, Shuji Ogino and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gut microbiome: decision-makers in the microenvironment of colorectal cancer.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Markus Dines KnudsenDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Kai WangDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Liang WangDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Georgios PolychronidisDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Paula BerstadSection of Bowel Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Ullernchausseen 64, Oslo, Norway.
Kana WuDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Xiaosheng HeDivision of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, USA.
Dong HangDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Zhe FangDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Shuji OginoDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrew T ChanDivision of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, USA.
Edward GiovannucciDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Molin WangDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Mingyang SongDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USBroad Institute · USCancer Registry of Norway · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

Dietary prevention for colorectal cancer: targeting the bile acid/gut microbiome axisK99CA283146 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI WANG, KAI · 2023 to 2024
$244k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA283146
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective risk stratification tools for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer (PPCRC) are lacking. We aimed to develop an effective risk stratification tool for the prediction of PPCRC in three large population-based cohorts and to validate the tool in a clinical cohort. Methods: Leveraging the integrated endoscopic, histopathologic and epidemiologic data in three U.S population-based cohorts of health professional (the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) I, II and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS)), we developed a risk score to predict incident PPCRC among 26,741 patients with a polypectomy between 1986 and 2017. We validated the PPCRC score in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) Colonoscopy Cohort (Boston, Massachusetts, U.S) of 76,603 patients with a polypectomy between 2007 and 2018. In all four cohorts, we collected detailed data on patients' demographics, endoscopic history, polyp features, and lifestyle factors at polypectomy. The outcome, incidence of PPCRC, was assessed by biennial follow-up questionnaires in the NHS/HPFS cohorts, and through linkage to the Massachusetts Cancer Registry in the MGB cohort. In all four cohorts, individuals who were diagnosed with CRC or died before baseline or within six months after baseline were excluded. We used Cox regression to calculate the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and assessed the discrimination using C-statistics and reclassification using the Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI). Findings: During a median follow-up of 12.8 years (interquartile range (IQR): 9.3, 16.7) and 5.1 years (IQR: 2.7, 7.8) in the NHS/HPFS and MGB cohorts, we documented 220 and 241 PPCRC cases, respectively. We identified a PPCRC risk score based on 11 predictors. In the validation cohort, the PPCRC risk score showed a strong association with PPCRC risk (HR for high vs. low, 3.55, 95% CI, 2.59-4.88) and demonstrated a C-statistic (95% CI) of 0.75 (0.70-0.79), and was discriminatory even within the low- and high-risk polyp groups (C-statistic, 0.73 and 0.71, respectively) defined by the current colonoscopy surveillance recommendations, leading to a NRI of 45% (95% CI, 36-54%) for patients with PPCRC. Interpretation: We developed and validated a risk stratification model for PPCRC that may be useful to guide tailored colonoscopy surveillance. Further work is needed to determine the optimal surveillance interval and test the added value of other predictors of PPCRC beyond those included in the current study, along with implementation studies. Funding: US National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColonoscopy surveillanceColorectal cancerPost-polypectomyPrediction model

Identifiers

PMID37599907
PMCPMC10432960
OpenAlexW4385723006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.