ReviewCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Review of Network Meta-Analyses on the Efficacy of Chemopreventive Agents on Colorectal Adenomas and Cancer.
Review in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The effect of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on short-chain fatty acid production and the gut microbiome in anGut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Colorectal adenomas (CRAs) are a crucial precursor for CRC and a target for preventive strategies. Recent network meta-analyses (NMAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that chemopreventive agents (CPAs) are associated with reductions in CRC incidence. However, the quality of this evidence is low due to significant variability in the methods and types of studies assessed.PurposeOur study reviewed the efficacy and safety of CPAs on CRAs or CRCs evaluated in NMAs of RCTs and assessed the quality of all published NMAs on CPAs.Research DesignWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published from inception to July 29, 2024. We included all NMAs assessing the efficacy and safety of CPAs on CRC in both average-risk (general population) and high-risk (previous history of adenoma/CRC) populations. ResultsNine NMAs comparing 15 different interventions were included. Aspirin and non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as celecoxib were the most studied. Aspirin demonstrated efficacy against the development of any CRA and low-dose aspirin was consistently more protective than high-dose aspirin. However, the effect of aspirin against advanced CRA was not statistically significant. Concerns for long-term aspirin use included an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and ulceration, but when evaluating all serious adverse events (SAEs), aspirin users did not have an increased risk compared to controls. Non-aspirin NSAIDs showed better efficacy against advanced CRA. However, the use of non-aspirin NSAIDs such as celecoxib was associated with significantly increased risk of SAEs, particularly cardiovascular disease events.ConclusionsConsidering the balance of efficacy and safety, low-dose aspirin is currently the best option for chemoprevention of CRA/CRC. Future research is needed to better characterize the patient subgroups that benefit most and to develop new, more effective CPAs.
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.