ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
Significant variation in the assessment and management of screen-detected colorectal polyp cancers.
Article 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEndoscopic resection is appropriate for selected colorectal polyp cancers, but significant variation exists in treatment. This study aims to investigate variation in management of screen-detected polyp cancers (T1), factors predicting primary endoscopic polypectomy and threshold for subsequent surgical resection.
methodPatients with polyp cancers (T1) diagnosed by the bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) were investigated at two screening centres (5 individual sites and 4 MDTs, 2012-2022). Patient demographics, pathological characteristics, management and outcomes were recorded. Variation in management was compared between sites. Risk factors for primary endoscopic polypectomy and the need for subsequent surgical resection were analysed using multivariable binary logistic regression models.
resultsOf 220 polyp cancers, 178 (81%) underwent primary endoscopic resection. Secondary surgical excision was required in 54 (30%). Study sites were not significantly different in their primary management for colonic or rectal polyps. Only the size of colonic polyps was associated with primary surgery rather than endoscopic polypectomy (OR 1.05 (95% CI 1.00-1.11); p = 0.038). There was a difference between study sites in the odds ratio for secondary surgery after primary polypectomy for colonic polyps (OR 3.97 (95% CI 1.20-16.0); p = 0.033) but not rectal. Other factors associated with the requirement for secondary surgery were as follows: sessile morphology for colonic polyps (OR 2.92 (95% CI 1.25-6.97); p = 0.013) and en-bloc resection for rectal polyps (OR 0.14 (0.02-0.85); p = 0.043).
conclusionThere was significant variation in the assessment and treatment of colonic polyp cancers. Standardising pathology reporting and treatment algorithms may lead to better consistency of care and a reduction in secondary surgery.
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.