Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38787555›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2024

Red Flag Signs and Symptoms for Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Joshua Demb, Jennifer M Kolb, Jonathan Dounel, Cassandra D L Fritz, Shailesh M Advani, Yin Cao, Penny Coppernoll-Blach, Andrea J Dwyer, Jose Perea, Karen M Heskett and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. [Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

16 authors.

Joshua DembDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Jennifer M KolbVatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Jonathan DounelDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla.
Cassandra D L FritzDivision of Gastroenterology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Shailesh M AdvaniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York.
Yin CaoDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Penny Coppernoll-BlachUC San Diego Library, University of California San Diego, La Jolla.
Andrea J DwyerUniversity of Colorado Cancer Center, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora.
Jose PereaMolecular Medicine Unit, Department of Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute of Salamanca, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Karen M HeskettUC San Diego Library, University of California San Diego, La Jolla.
Andreana N HolowatyjVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Christopher H LieuDivision of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Siddharth SinghDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Manon C W SpaanderDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Fanny E R VuikDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Samir GuptaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.

Funding

NCI NIH HHS L30 CA294372
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as a diagnosis at younger than age 50 years, is increasing, and so-called red flag signs and symptoms among these individuals are often missed, leading to diagnostic delays. Improved recognition of presenting signs and symptoms associated with EOCRC could facilitate more timely diagnosis and impact clinical outcomes. Objective: To report the frequency of presenting red flag signs and symptoms among individuals with EOCRC, to examine their association with EOCRC risk, and to measure variation in time to diagnosis from sign or symptom presentation. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from database inception through May 2023. Study Selection: Studies that reported on sign and symptom presentation or time from sign and symptom presentation to diagnosis for patients younger than age 50 years diagnosed with nonhereditary CRC were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently in duplicate for all included studies using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to measure risk of bias. Data on frequency of signs and symptoms were pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were pooled proportions of signs and symptoms in patients with EOCRC, estimates for association of signs and symptoms with EOCRC risk, and time from sign or symptom presentation to EOCRC diagnosis. Results: Of the 12 859 unique articles initially retrieved, 81 studies with 24 908 126 patients younger than 50 years were included. The most common presenting signs and symptoms, reported by 78 included studies, were hematochezia (pooled prevalence, 45% [95% CI, 40%-50%]), abdominal pain (pooled prevalence, 40% [95% CI, 35%-45%]), and altered bowel habits (pooled prevalence, 27% [95% CI, 22%-33%]). Hematochezia (estimate range, 5.2-54.0), abdominal pain (estimate range, 1.3-6.0), and anemia (estimate range, 2.1-10.8) were associated with higher EOCRC likelihood. Time from signs and symptoms presentation to EOCRC diagnosis was a mean (range) of 6.4 (1.8-13.7) months (23 studies) and a median (range) of 4 (2.0-8.7) months (16 studies). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with EOCRC, nearly half of individuals presented with hematochezia and abdominal pain and one-quarter with altered bowel habits. Hematochezia was associated with at least 5-fold increased EOCRC risk. Delays in diagnosis of 4 to 6 months were common. These findings highlight the need to identify concerning EOCRC signs and symptoms and complete timely diagnostic workup, particularly for individuals without an alternative diagnosis or sign or symptom resolution.

Indexed as

Age of OnsetColorectal NeoplasmsAdultDelayed DiagnosisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID38787555
PMCPMC11127127

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.