Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38561018›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2024

Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening from the National Health Interview Survey: Analysis of the Impact of Different Modalities on Overall Screening Rates.

Derek W Ebner, Lila J Finney Rutten, Lesley-Ann Miller-Wilson, Niels Markwat, Vahab Vahdat, A Burak Ozbay, Paul J Limburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Derek W EbnerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0003-0089-2507
Lila J Finney RuttenDivision of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0001-7487-9407
Lesley-Ann Miller-WilsonExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0003-4983-4041
Niels MarkwatMarkwat Consulting, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0006-4709-558X
Vahab VahdatExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0001-7831-7567
A Burak OzbayExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0002-8624-6313
Paul J LimburgExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0002-2428-5675

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults in the United States. Despite compelling evidence of improved outcomes in colorectal cancer, screening rates are not optimal. This study aimed to characterize colorectal cancer screening trends over the last two decades and assess the impact of various screening modalities on overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Using National Health Interview Survey data from 2005 to 2021, we examined colorectal cancer screening [colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography] rates among adults ages 50-75 years (n = 85,571). A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo-TSCS) analysis was conducted including a random effects generalized least squares regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on changes in colorectal cancer screening rates. Among 50 to 75 year olds, the estimated colorectal cancer screening rate increased from 47.7% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2021, with the largest increase between 2005 and 2010 (47.7%-60.7%). Rates subsequently plateaued until 2015 but increased from 63.5% in 2015 to 69.9% in 2018. This was primarily driven by the increased use of mt-sDNA (2.5% in 2018 to 6.6% in 2021). Pseudo-TSCS analysis results showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the increase in overall screening rates (77.3%; P < 0.0001) between 2018 and 2021. While colorectal cancer screening rates increased from 2005 to 2021, they remain below the 80% goal. The introduction of mt-sDNA, a noninvasive screening test may have improved overall rates. Sustained efforts are required to further increase screening rates to improve patient outcomes and offering a range of screening options is likely to contribute to achieving this goal. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This retrospective study highlights the importance of convenient stool-based colorectal cancer screening options to achieve the national goal of 80% for overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Empowering screening-eligible individuals with a choice for their colorectal cancer screening tests is imperative.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerOccult BloodSigmoidoscopyAgedColonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyCross-Sectional StudiesFecesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38561018
PMCPMC11148536

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.