ArticleCancer biology & medicine2024
Effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening integrating non-genetic and genetic risk: a prospective study based on UK Biobank data.
Article in Cancer biology & medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Utilization of molecular genetic approaches for colorectal cancer screening.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFew studies have evaluated the benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening integrating both non-genetic and genetic risk factors. Here, we aimed to integrate an existing non-genetic risk model (QCancer-10) and a 139-variant polygenic risk score to evaluate the effectiveness of screening on CRC incidence and mortality.
methodsWe applied the integrated model to calculate 10-year CRC risk for 430,908 participants in the UK Biobank, and divided the participants into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. We calculated the screening-associated hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute risk reductions (ARRs) for CRC incidence and mortality according to risk stratification.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 11.03 years and 12.60 years, we observed 5,158 CRC cases and 1,487 CRC deaths, respectively. CRC incidence and mortality were significantly lower among screened than non-screened participants in both the intermediate- and high-risk groups [incidence: HR: 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-0.94; 0.81, 0.73-0.90; mortality: 0.75, 0.64-0.87; 0.70, 0.58-0.85], which composed approximately 60% of the study population. The ARRs (95% CI) were 0.17 (0.11-0.24) and 0.43 (0.24-0.61), respectively, for CRC incidence, and 0.08 (0.05-0.11) and 0.24 (0.15-0.33), respectively, for mortality. Screening did not significantly reduce the relative or absolute risk of CRC incidence and mortality in the low-risk group. Further analysis revealed that screening was most effective for men and individuals with distal CRC among the intermediate to high-risk groups.
conclusionsAfter integrating both genetic and non-genetic factors, our findings provided priority evidence of risk-stratified CRC screening and valuable insights for the rational allocation of health resources.
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.