Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40214411›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025

Invitation for FOBt screening and colorectal cancer mortality: A prospective analysis in the Million Women Study cohort.

Roger G Blanks, Rupert J Alison, Gillian K Reeves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Roger G BlanksCancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4748-3444
Rupert J AlisonCancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gillian K ReevesCancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3035-4697

Funding

Cancer Research UK C16077/A29186
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using linked data from the Million Women Study (MWS) cohort and the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHS BCSP) offering biennial guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) screening from 2006, we examined factors associated with screening acceptance, and differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality by screening invitation status. Characteristics of attenders and non-attenders were compared among 752,007 MWS participants born 1940-1950, who were all invited for at least one round of routine screening. Women declining screening had higher deprivation and smoking levels, and a 2-fold risk of all-cause and CRC mortality compared with women who accepted. Of 246,160 women born in 1935-1939, 111,956 were assigned to the "no intention to invite" group, and 134,204 to the "intention to invite" group based on year of birth and postcode sector, with an average of 0.01 and 2.40 screening invitations in each group, respectively. During a mean follow up of 11.9 years, there were 858 and 791 CRC deaths in the "intention to invite" and "no intention to invite" groups, respectively. In the period 4 or more years after study entry there was no significant reduction in risk of death from CRC associated with invitation for screening (RR = 0.94, 95%CI 0.83-1.06), but evidence of differences in associations by anatomical sub-site, with a reduction in deaths from distal colon cancer (0.64, 0.47-0.88), but not proximal (1.02, 0.83-1.25) or rectal cancer (0.97, 0.79-1.20) (p-value for heterogeneity by subsite = 0.05). Investigation of the effectiveness of current bowel screening methods using faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) by sex and cancer sub-site is warranted.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerOccult BloodPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProspective Studiescolorectal cancermortalityscreening

Identifiers

PMID40214411
PMCPMC12232529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.