ArticleBMJ open2026
Microsimulation model to identify suboptimal recurrence detection in patients with colorectal cancer following the current standard of care.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesColorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Stage II/III patients undergo curative-intent surgery yet still face the recurrence risk. Detecting recurrences early provides the best opportunity for optimal treatment. We aimed to develop a microsimulation model to evaluate CRC management-associated outcomes based on current guidelines, including the performance of guideline-recommended surveillance in detecting recurrences.
designTwo separate individual-level state transition (microsimulation) models for colon and rectal cancer were built with a lifetime horizon using monthly cycles. The models integrated treatment and surveillance strategies per current guidelines.
settingThe currently recommended surveillance modalities by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for surveilling patients with CRC after curative-intent surgery.
participants65-year-old patients with stage II and stage III CRC who underwent curative-intent surgery in the USA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative recurrences, detected recurrences, detection rate, overall survival and recurrence-free survival in a 5-year horizon, as well as average life expectancy, were the outcome measures used.
resultsOver 5 years, disease recurrence was observed in 9.5% of patients with stage II-III colon cancer and in 38.0% of patients with stage II-III rectal cancer. Of these, 82.5% and 85.5% were detected via surveillance, respectively, within 5 years. The predicted 5-year overall survival was 86.0% for colon cancer and 69.3% for rectal cancer, with corresponding recurrence-free survival rates of 78.9% and 53.8%. Based on current guidelines-recommended surveillance, detecting one colon cancer recurrence requires 148 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests, 37 CT scans and 21 colonoscopies. In contrast, detecting one rectal cancer recurrence requires 31 CEA tests, 8 CT scans and 4 colonoscopies.
conclusionsOur validated model suggests that relative to an optimal benchmark in which all recurrences are detected, recurrence detection under current guidelines may be suboptimal, indicating room for improvement. As new tests emerge, this model could be a valuable tool for evaluating existing clinical practices and the potential of new tests to enhance patient outcomes.
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.