Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2024
Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: reanalysis of the NordICC data.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy as a common screening practice to prevent colorectal cancer lacks strong evidence. NordICC, the first randomized trial of colonoscopy screening, reported no clear clinical benefit for colonoscopy in the intention-to-screen population with suggested benefit in the risk of colorectal incidence and cancer-specific mortality in the per-protocol analyses. However, although the study was designed to perform survival analysis, no survival outcomes were reported since the underlying assumption for hazard ratio was not valid. We aimed to assess whether colonoscopy screening is associated with improved survival outcomes compared with usual care.
methodsWe reconstructed patient-level data from the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the primary endpoints reported in NordICC for the intention-to-screen and adjusted per-protocol populations. The restricted-mean survival time difference (RMST-D) and restricted-mean time loss ratio (RMTL-R), which are robust alternatives to the hazard ratio without specific model assumptions, were calculated for colorectal cancer incidence and death.
resultsIn this study, no significant difference in colorectal cancer incidence over 10 years was found in the intention-to-screen population (RMST-D: -0.68 days, 95% CI -3.9-2.6; RMTL-R: 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.22) or in the per-protocol analysis population (RMST-D: -2.9 days, 95% CI -6.5-0.67; RMTL-R: 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.35). In the intention-to-screen population, inviting individuals to colonoscopy did not improve colorectal-cancer death (RMST-D: -0.29 days, 95% CI -1.6-1.0; RMTL-R: 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.48). Over 10 years, in the per-protocol analysis, individuals who underwent colonoscopy survived an average of 1.1 more days free of colorectal cancer, but this difference was not statistically significant (RMST-D: 95% CI -0.13-2.3; RMTL-R: 0.72, 95% CI 0.49-1.07).
conclusionsIn this reanalysis of the NordICC data, no evidence of improvement in survival outcomes for participants invited to undergo colonoscopy compared to usual care was identified, even when assuming that all invited participants did undergo colonoscopy. Thus, our results do not support the use of colonoscopy as a population-wide screening test as a mean to decrease colorectal cancer incidence or death. REGISTRY: Not applicable.
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.