ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2025
Accounting for Endoscopic Screening in Colorectal Cancer Risk Models.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer risk models routinely adjust for endoscopic screening because of (i) possible confounding with other risk factors and (ii) possible alteration of the natural history of the disease due to adenoma detection and removal.
methodsIn this study, we defined a subject as screen-covered (SC) if a colonoscopy was performed in the past 10 years and not screen-covered (NSC) otherwise. We created colorectal cancer risk models separately for SC and NSC subjects (HRSC, HRNSC) and then obtained a screening-coverage adjusted HR estimate (HRfull) based on a weighted average of ln(HRSC) and ln(HRNSC), with weight equal to the proportion of SC person-time in the Nurses' Healh Study (NHS) population. We illustrate these methods on 45,538 participants of the NHS, for whom we have updated endoscopy data from 1986 to 2014.
resultsThe adjustment effects of screening were small for most risk factors, but the HR for age became stronger after adjustment [HRunadjusted = 1.59 (1.48, 1.71); HRfull = 1.81 (1.67, 1.97)], whereas the HR for current menopausal hormone therapy became weaker [HRunadjusted Estrogen only (E) = 0.62 (0.54, 0.73); HRfull E = 0.72 (0.60, 0.87)].
conclusionsWe have demonstrated a novel approach to control for the confounding effect of screening in colorectal cancer risk models. IMPACT: Improved methods to address the impact of screening in colorectal cancer risk models reduce bias in the estimation of associations with other risk factors. Additional applications and evaluation of this method in other populations would support the utility of this approach.
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.