Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38386617›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2024

Combining fecal immunochemical testing and questionnaire-based risk assessment in selecting participants for colonoscopy screening in the Chinese National Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs: A population-based cohort study.

Xuesi Dong, Lingbin Du, Zilin Luo, Yongjie Xu, Chenran Wang, Fei Wang, Wei Cao, Liang Zhao, Yadi Zheng, Hongting Zhu and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xuesi DongOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Lingbin DuDepartment of Cancer Prevention, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Zilin LuoOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5071-1423
Yongjie XuOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8417-3168
Chenran WangOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Fei WangOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wei CaoOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Liang ZhaoOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yadi ZhengOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Hongting ZhuYongkang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Yongkang, China.
Changfa XiaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jiang LiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Mulong DuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2733-6490
Dong HangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jiansong RenOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6445-0153
Jufang ShiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Hongbing ShenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Wanqing ChenOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Ni LiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5530-7745
Jie HeOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Cancer Screening Program in Urban China (CanSPUC) Group
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNNanjing Medical University · CNZhejiang Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) burden by allowing early resection of precancerous and cancerous lesions. An adequate selection of high-risk individuals and a high uptake rate for colonoscopy screening are critical to identifying people more likely to benefit from screening and allocating healthcare resources properly. We evaluated whether combining a questionnaire-based interview for risk factors with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outcomes for high-risk assessment is more efficient and economical than a questionnaire-based interview-only strategy. METHODS AND

findingsIn this multicenter, population-based, prospective cohort study, we enrolled community residents aged 40 to 74 years in 29 provinces across China. From 2016 to 2020, a total of 1,526,824 eligible participants were consecutively enrolled in the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China (CanSPUC) cohort, and 940,605 were enrolled in the Whole Life Cycle of Cancer Screening Program (WHOLE) cohort, with follow-up to December 31, 2022. The mean ages were 56.89 and 58.61 years in CanSPUC and WHOLE, respectively. In the WHOLE cohort, high-risk individuals were identified by combining questionnaire-based interviews to collect data on risk factors (demographics, diet history, family history of CRC, etc.) with FIT outcomes (RF-FIT strategy), whereas in the CanSPUC cohort, high-risk individuals were identified using only interview-based data on risk factors (RF strategy). The primary outcomes were participation rate and yield (detection rate of advanced neoplasm, early-stage detection rate of CRCs [stage I/II], screening yield per 10,000 invitees), which were reported for the entire population and for different gender and age groups. The secondary outcome was the cost per case detected. In total, 71,967 (7.65%) and 281,985 (18.47%) individuals were identified as high-risk and were invited to undergo colonoscopy in the RF-FIT group and RF group, respectively. The colonoscopy participation rate in the RF-FIT group was 26.50% (19,071 of 71,967) and in the RF group was 19.54% (55,106 of 281,985; chi-squared test, p < 0.001). A total of 102 (0.53%) CRCs and 2,074 (10.88%) advanced adenomas were detected by the RF-FIT, versus 90 (0.16%) and 3,593 (6.52%) by the RF strategy (chi-squared test, both p < 0.001). The early-stage detection rate using the RF-FIT strategy was significantly higher than that by the RF strategy (67.05% versus 47.95%, Fisher's exact test, p = 0.016). The cost per CRC detected was $24,849 by the RF-FIT strategy versus $55,846 by the RF strategy. A limitation of the study was lack of balance between groups with regard to family history of CRC (3.5% versus 0.7%).

conclusionsColonoscopy participation and screening yield were better with the RF-FIT strategy. The association with CRC incidence and mortality reduction should be evaluated after long-term follow-up.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAdultAgedCohort StudiesColonoscopyHumansMiddle AgedPatient SelectionProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38386617
PMCPMC10883529
OpenAlexW4392029320

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.