ReviewInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
A cell-free DNA colorectal cancer screening test promising enhanced accessibility and early detection.
Review in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microsurgery in mucosal advancement flap repair: a microscope-assisted, tissue-sparing approach for managing complex perianal fistulas within the IDEAL Stage 1 framework.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- MRI-based radiomics for preoperative T-staging of rectal cancer: a retrospective analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Oat Beta-Glucans Modulate the Gut Microbiome, Barrier Function, and Immune Responses in an In Vivo Model of Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant global health challenge, with approximately 1.9 million new cases and 930,000 deaths reported in 2020. The highest incidence rates are observed in Australia/New Zealand and Europe, while lower rates are found in Africa and Southern Asia. Projections for 2040 indicate a rise to 3.2 million new cases and 1.6 million deaths, particularly in high development index regions, underscoring the need for improved prevention and detection. Despite advancements in screening methods and polyp removal, CRC mortality remains high in the United States due to non-adherence to recommended tests. Barriers such as cost and lack of insurance contribute to this issue. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based testing offers a promising alternative, with studies showing 83.1% sensitivity for CRC and 89.6% specificity for advanced neoplasia, comparable to traditional screening methods but with reduced risk of adverse events. The recent FDA approval of the Shield blood test, which has demonstrated 83% efficacy in detecting late-stage CRC, represents a significant advancement. Incorporating cfDNA testing into screening protocols could improve accessibility and compliance, especially for those unwilling or unable to undergo more invasive procedures. Regular evaluation of cfDNA testing, including Shield, is essential for enhancing CRC screening strategies and patient outcomes.
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.