ArticleJAMA network open2023
Personalized Initial Screening Age for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals at Average Risk.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the Precancerous Gap in Colorectal Cancer Through AI-Enhanced Liquid Biopsy, Endoscopy, and Digital Pathology.Cancers · 2026Review
- Defining Age to Screen and Real-World Effectiveness for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Smoking metabolic signature modifies the risk of colorectal cancer and interacts with genetic susceptibility: a large-scale prospective cohort study.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Preventing premature deaths through polygenic risk scores.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Dynamic screening initiation using 16 plasma protein biomarkers with polygenic risk and PLCOm2012: a precision prevention framework for lung cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Routine Medical Care: A Longitudinal Analysis From Germany.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Article
- Insights from age-stratified endoscopic detection metrics support initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 45.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Potential for enhancing efficacy of screening colonoscopy by lowering starting ages and extending screening intervals: A modelling study for Germany.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- [Early-onset colorectal cancer : When should we start with screening?]Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Survival Tree Analysis of Interactions Among Factors Associated With Colorectal Cancer Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- Plasma proteomic and polygenic profiling improve risk stratification and personalized screening for colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk varies widely in the population at average risk without a family history, but there are no established routines for translating this variation into personalized starting ages of screening. Objective: To illustrate derivation of risk-adapted starting ages of CRC screening based on the concept of risk advancement period (RAP) using sex and a polygenic risk score (PRS) as an example. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included participants in the UK Biobank study recruited in England, Wales, and Scotland between March 13, 2006, and October 1, 2010. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years, with no previous bowel cancer screening and no family history of CRC. Follow-up of cancer data was completed February 29, 2020, for England and Wales and January 31, 2021, for Scotland. The censoring date for death data was September 30, 2021, for England and Wales and October 31, 2021, for Scotland. Exposures: Data on age, sex, and family history were collected at the baseline interview. A PRS was calculated based on 139 CRC-related risk loci. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) of sex and PRS with CRC risk and mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models and were translated to RAPs to quantify how many years of age earlier or later men and individuals in higher or lower PRS deciles would reach risks comparable with those of the reference group (ie, women or those in the 5th and 6th PRS deciles). Results: Among 242 779 participants (median age, 55 [IQR, 48-61] years; 55.7% women), 2714 incident CRC cases were identified during a median follow-up of 11.2 (IQR, 10.5-11.8) years and 758 deaths during a median follow-up of 12.8 (IQR, 12.0-13.4) years. The HRs of CRC risk were 1.57 (95% CI, 1.46-1.70) for men vs women and ranged from 0.51 (95% CI, 0.41-0.62) to 2.29 (95% CI, 2.01-2.62) across PRS deciles compared with the reference. The RAPs were 5.6 (95% CI, 4.6-6.6) years for men vs women and ranged from -8.4 (95% CI, -11.0 to -5.9) to 10.3 (95% CI, 8.5-12.1) years across PRS deciles compared with the reference deciles. Risk-adapted starting ages of screening would vary by 24 years between men in the highest PRS decile and women in the lowest PRS decile. Similar results were obtained regarding CRC mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large cohort study including women and men at average risk of CRC, risk-adapted starting ages of screening strongly varied by sex and a PRS. The RAP concept could easily accommodate additional factors for defining personalized starting ages of screening.
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.