Literature DB >> 27133893

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis1, Muhammad Usman Ali2, Rachel Warren2, Meghan Kenny2, Diana Sherifali2, Parminder Raina3.   

Abstract

To evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in asymptomatic adults. A search was conducted of the Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A targeted search of PubMed was conducted for on-topic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis across 4 RCTs for guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening showed a reduction of 18% (risk ratio [RR], 0.82; 95% CI [CI], 0.73-0.92) and 26% (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83) in CRC mortality for the screening group compared to controls, respectively. The number needed to screen (NNS) were 377 (95% CI, 249-887) and 864 (95% CI, 672-1266) for gFOBT and FS screening, respectively. A reduction of 8% and 27% in incidence of late-stage CRC was also observed for gFOBT and FS screening, respectively, but both had no significant effect on all-cause mortality. A single RCT found that screening with immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) had no significant impact on CRC mortality (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). Screening with FS has potential harms such as perforation, major and minor bleeding, and death from the procedure or from follow-up colonoscopy. gFOBT and FS screening reduce CRC mortality and incidence of late-stage disease. The absolute effect and NNS were much more favorable for older adults (≥ 60 years), suggesting that a targeted screening approach may avoid exposing younger adults to the harms of CRC screening, from which they are unlikely to derive any significant benefit. Although there is insufficient RCT evidence on the impact of iFOBT on mortality outcomes. compared to gFOBT, this test showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, indicating the need to update and reevaluate the evidence in light of future high-quality research. The protocol for this systematic review have been published with PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014009777. Copyright Â
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Colorectal; Screening; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27133893     DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2016.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Colorectal Cancer        ISSN: 1533-0028            Impact factor:   4.481


  32 in total

1.  The Conversion of Planned Colonoscopy to Sigmoidoscopy and the Effect of this Practice on the Measurement of Quality Indicators.

Authors:  Sabina Beg; Stefano Sansone; Francesco Manguso; John Schembri; Jay Patel; Mo Thoufeeq; Gareth Corbett; Krish Ragunath
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 2.  Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Rami P Atallah; Roger D Struble; Robert G Badgett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Samir Gupta
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 2.861

4.  Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge and Perceived Barriers Among Physicians in the United States.

Authors:  Karthik J Kota; Stephanie Ji; Michelle T Bover-Manderski; Cristine D Delnevo; Michael B Steinberg
Journal:  JTO Clin Res Rep       Date:  2022-04-22

5.  Characteristics of colorectal cancers among Alaska Native people before and after implementing programs to promote screening.

Authors:  Sarah H Nash; Carla Britton; Diana Redwood
Journal:  J Cancer Policy       Date:  2021-07-12

Review 6.  An update on CT screening for lung cancer: the first major targeted cancer screening programme.

Authors:  David R Baldwin; Matthew E J Callister
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Gender differences in health-related quality of life among patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Delara Laghousi; Esmat Jafari; Hosseinali Nikbakht; Behnam Nasiri; Morteza Shamshirgaran; Nayyereh Aminisani
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2019-06

8.  Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.

Authors:  Elisabeth F P Peterse; Caroline B Osoro; Marc Bardou; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 8.171

9.  The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

Authors:  Linda N Douma; Ellen Uiters; Danielle R M Timmermans
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Matrix metalloproteinase-13 refines pathological staging of precancerous colorectal lesions.

Authors:  Anna-Katharina Wernicke; Yuri Churin; Diana Sheridan; Anita Windhorst; Annette Tschuschner; Stefan Gattenlöhner; Martin Roderfeld; Elke Roeb
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-11-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.