ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Missed colorectal cancer diagnosis by screening colonoscopy based on the PLCO cancer screening trial.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. 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.
- Bridging the Precancerous Gap in Colorectal Cancer Through AI-Enhanced Liquid Biopsy, Endoscopy, and Digital Pathology.Cancers · 2026Review
- Curcumin in colorectal cancer: preventive strategies and therapeutic mechanisms.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2025Review
- Novel immune-nutritional prognostic ratio predicts long-term survival in stage I-III colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the proportion of colorectal cancer (CRC) missed by colonoscopy and the characteristics of the patients with missed diagnosis using data from the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial, and to analyze and compare patient survival between detection and missed diagnosis groups for an evidence-based basis for improving the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with CRC identified by baseline or follow-up colonoscopy and those identified by annual study update questionnaires or National Death Index search, without any positive findings by colonoscopy in the screening arm of the PLCO study, were included in this study. We calculated the rate of missed CRC diagnosis by colonoscopy using the definition of missed cases as the numerator and the sum of patients with CRC as the denominator.
resultsThree hundred sixty patients with CRC were included in the final analysis (detection group, n = 298; missed diagnosis group, n = 62). The overall rate of missed CRC diagnosis by colonoscopy was 17.22%. Patients with a history of colorectal polyps had a higher rate of missed diagnoses (33.3%). The missed diagnosis rate was higher in patients with proximal CRC (31.3%). CRC occurring in the transverse colon (29.6%), hepatic flexure of the colon (40.0%), ascending colon (27.0%), and cecum (36.6%) were more likely to be missed by colonoscopy. The later the stage, the higher the missed CRC diagnosis rate (10.5, 20.0, 30.8, and 30.8% for stages I-IV, respectively).
conclusionColonoscopy missed a relatively high proportion of CRC, mainly in the proximal colon (especially in the hepatic flexure and cecum of the colon). Recent developments in non-invasive screening technologies, such as stool DNA testing and liquid biopsy, may help address the limitations of colonoscopy. Combining these approaches with traditional endoscopy could enhance overall detection accuracy and reduce the rate of missed colorectal cancer.
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.