Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37676720›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2023

Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Based on Predicted Risk: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Ekaterina Plys, Jean-Luc Bulliard, Aziz Chaouch, Marie-Anne Durand, Luuk A van Duuren, Karen Brändle, Reto Auer, Florian Froehlich, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Douglas A Corley and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05357508 (Protocol Title), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT05357508 nacompletednot on this map

Protocol Title: Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions Based on Predicted Risk: the PREcision ScreENing Randomized Controlled Trial (PRESENT)

TypeinterventionalSponsorCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisante), University of Lausanne, SwitzerlandRan2022 to 2023Enrolled515ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsIntervention brochure, Control brochure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Ekaterina PlysCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0449-5296
Jean-Luc BulliardCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9750-2709
Aziz ChaouchCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9893-0465
Marie-Anne DurandCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8173-1993
Luuk A van DuurenCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6286-8062
Karen BrändleCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9175-9635
Reto AuerInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4222-4849
Florian FroehlichDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3109-0198
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarErasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9438-2753
Douglas A CorleyDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6132-5165
Kevin SelbyCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9096-0720
Centre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, Lausanne · CHErasmus MC · NLKaiser Permanente · USUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FRUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively reduced by screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Individual risk to develop CRC within 15 years varies from <1% to >15% among people aged 50 to 75 years. Communicating personalized CRC risk and appropriate screening recommendations could improve the risk-benefit balance of screening test allocations and optimize the use of limited colonoscopy resources. However, significant uncertainty exists regarding the feasibility and efficacy of risk-based screening.

objectiveWe aim to study the effect of communicating individual CRC risk and a risk-based recommendation of the FIT or colonoscopy on participants' choice of screening test. We will also assess the feasibility of a larger clinical trial designed to evaluate the impact of personalized screening on clinical outcomes.

methodsWe will perform a pilot randomized controlled trial among 880 residents aged 50 to 69 years eligible to participate in the organized screening program of the Vaud canton, Switzerland. Participants will be recruited by mail by the Vaud CRC screening program. Primary and secondary outcomes will be self-assessed through questionnaires. The risk score will be calculated using the open-source QCancer calculator that was validated in the United Kingdom. Participants will be stratified into 3 groups-low (<3%), moderate (3% to <6%), and high (≥6%) risk-according to their 15-year CRC risk and randomized within each risk stratum. The intervention group participants will receive a newly designed brochure with their personalized risk and screening recommendations. The control group will receive the usual brochure of the Vaud CRC screening program. Our primary outcome, measured using a self-administered questionnaire, is appropriate screening uptake 6 months after the intervention. Screening will be defined as appropriate if participants at high risk undertake colonoscopy and participants at low risk undertake the FIT. We will also measure the acceptability of the risk score and screening recommendations and the psychological factors influencing screening behavior. We will also assess the feasibility of a full-scale randomized controlled trial.

resultsWe expect that a total sample of 880 individuals will allow us to detect a difference of 10% (α=5%) between groups. The main outcome will be analyzed using a 2-tailed chi-squared test. We expect that appropriate screening uptake will be higher in the intervention group. No difference in overall screening uptake is expected.

conclusionsWe will test the impact of personalized risk information and screening recommendations on participants' choice of screening test in an organized screening program. This study should advance our understanding of the feasibility of large-scale risk-based CRC screening. Our results may provide insights into the optimization of CRC screening by offering screening options with a better risk-benefit balance and optimizing the use of resources.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05357508; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05357508. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46865.

Indexed as

colorectal cancer screeningpersonalized screeningrisk communicationscreening behaviorshared decision-makingSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID37676720
PMCPMC10514773
OpenAlexW4386497587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.