ArticleBMC cancer2024
Age, frequency, and strategy optimization for organized colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis conducted in China for the years 2023-2038.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- An analysis of the burden of colorectal cancer caused by high body mass index in 204 countries and regions worldwide from 1990 to 2023.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Colonic Aging and Colorectal Cancer: An Unignorable Interplay and Its Translational Implications.Biology · 2025Review
- An insight into the role of innate immune cells in breast tumor microenvironment.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe colorectal cancer mortality rate in China has exceeded that in many developing countries and is expected to further increase owing to multiple factors, including the aging population. However, the optimal policy for colorectal cancer screening is unknown.
methodsWe synthesized the most up-to-date data using a 12-state Markov model populated with a cohort of Chinese men and women born during 1949-1988, and evaluated 16 conventional and 40 risk-tailored schemes for colorectal cancer screening, considering possible combinations of age (starting at 40 + years and ending at 75 years), frequency, and strategy (standard colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical testing with colonoscopy if positive, or risk-tailored). We projected the incidence and mortality of CRC, cost, and quality-adjusted life years for 2023-2038; and performed incremental cost-effectiveness, probability acceptability, and sensitivity analyses to identify the optimal scheme and the factors affecting this choice.
resultsBy 2038, all standard colonoscopy, colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical testing, and risk-tailored schemes were effective in reshaping China's colorectal cancer trajectory, with relative reductions in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates of up to 34% and 33.7%, respectively, versus no screening. Two standard colonoscopy, one colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical testing, and four risk-tailored schemes were efficient using a starting age of 40 years. Among these options, a risk-tailored scheme (standard colonoscopy every 5 years for high-risk and annual fecal immunochemical testing screening for moderate-to-low-risk) had a high probability (31.1%) of being optimal (with ≥ 40% uptake for a high-risk population, in particular), given China's present per capita gross domestic product, and would yield the highest gain in quality-adjusted life years in 17 of 31 provinces.
conclusionsOur findings suggest the commencement of colorectal cancer screening at 40 years of age in China, and that risk-tailored and some conventional schemes would be effective and cost-efficient. These findings should be valuable for policy-making regarding cancer control and resource allocation.
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.