ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2024
Type 2 diabetes mellitus and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: clinical and molecular characteristics and survival.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStudies suggest that patients with type two diabetes mellitus (T2D) may be at increased risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). We investigated clinical and molecular characteristics and survival of T2D patients with PCCRC to elucidate how T2D-related PCCRC may arise.
methodsWe identified T2D patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) from 1995 to 2015 and computed prevalence ratios (PRs) comparing clinical and molecular characteristics of CRC in T2D patients with PCCRC vs. in T2D patients with colonoscopy-detected CRC (dCRC). We also followed T2D patients from the diagnosis of PCCRC/dCRC until death, emigration, or study end and compared mortality using Cox-proportional hazards regression models adjusted for sex, age, year of CRC diagnosis, and CRC stage.
resultsCompared with dCRC, PCCRC was associated with a higher prevalence of proximal CRCs (54% vs. 40%; PR: 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.62) in T2D patients. We found no difference between PCCRC vs. dCRC for CRC stage, histology, and mismatch repair status. The proportion of CRCs that could be categorized as PCCRC decreased over time. Within one year after CRC, 63% of PCCRC vs. 78% of dCRC patients were alive (hazard ratio [HR] 1.85 [95% CI 1.47-2.31]). Within five years after CRC, 44% of PCCRC vs. 54% of dCRC patients were still alive (HR 1.44 [95% CI 1.11-1.87]).
conclusionThe increased prevalence of proximally located PCCRCs and the poorer survival may suggest overlooked colorectal lesions as a predominant explanation for T2D-related PCCRC, although altered tumor progression cannot be ruled out.
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.