ReviewCurrent oncology reports2026
Aspirin in Colorectal Cancer Care: Who to Treat, When, and Why.
Review in Current oncology reports, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewAspirin is ubiquitous, inexpensive, and mechanistically compelling in colorectal cancer (CRC), yet its clinical role has become more ambiguous with—notwithstanding—new data. Neutral phase III results in unselected disease, biomarker-restricted signals of benefit, and guideline shifts driven by bleeding risk have left clinicians without a consistent, setting-specific approach. This review fills that gap by translating the post-precision aspirin literature into a selection-first framework that specifies who may benefit, when off-trial use is reasonable versus discouraged, and why trial enrolment remains the preferred option in key areas of uncertainty. RECENT
findingsIn prevention, aspirin produces modest reductions in adenoma recurrence in selected high-risk surveillance cohorts and shows delayed cancer-endpoint benefit in Lynch syndrome, highlighting that baseline CRC risk and time horizon are decisive. In older adults and lower-risk settings, the time-to-benefit often does not align with a higher, earlier bleeding liability. After curative-intent treatment, randomised trials now define clear boundaries: routine adjuvant aspirin in unselected resected CRC is not supported, whereas recurrence reduction appears confined to PI3K-pathway / PIK3CA-altered localised disease, supporting biomarker-restricted consideration and rigorous prospective validation. In metastatic CRC, existing signals are largely non-randomised and confounded, precluding anticancer-motivated prescribing outside prospective studies. Aspirin in CRC should be targeted rather than routine. The proposed clinical algorithm integrates setting, absolute risk, PI3K/PIK3CA status, bleeding/antithrombotic context, and expected time horizon to maximise net benefit while reducing avoidable harm, and to prioritise trial enrolment where equipoise persists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41912748What 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.