Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: reanalysis of the NordICC data.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY BMC Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1186/s12876-024-03506-2
Tomer Meirson, Gal Markel, Daniel A Goldstein
{"title":"Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: reanalysis of the NordICC data.","authors":"Tomer Meirson, Gal Markel, Daniel A Goldstein","doi":"10.1186/s12876-024-03506-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colonoscopy as a common screening practice to prevent colorectal cancer lacks strong evidence. NordICC, the first randomized trial of colonoscopy screening, reported no clear clinical benefit for colonoscopy in the intention-to-screen population with suggested benefit in the risk of colorectal incidence and cancer-specific mortality in the per-protocol analyses. However, although the study was designed to perform survival analysis, no survival outcomes were reported since the underlying assumption for hazard ratio was not valid. We aimed to assess whether colonoscopy screening is associated with improved survival outcomes compared with usual care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reconstructed patient-level data from the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the primary endpoints reported in NordICC for the intention-to-screen and adjusted per-protocol populations. The restricted-mean survival time difference (RMST-D) and restricted-mean time loss ratio (RMTL-R), which are robust alternatives to the hazard ratio without specific model assumptions, were calculated for colorectal cancer incidence and death.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, no significant difference in colorectal cancer incidence over 10 years was found in the intention-to-screen population (RMST-D: -0.68 days, 95% CI -3.9-2.6; RMTL-R: 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.22) or in the per-protocol analysis population (RMST-D: -2.9 days, 95% CI -6.5-0.67; RMTL-R: 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.35). In the intention-to-screen population, inviting individuals to colonoscopy did not improve colorectal-cancer death (RMST-D: -0.29 days, 95% CI -1.6-1.0; RMTL-R: 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.48). Over 10 years, in the per-protocol analysis, individuals who underwent colonoscopy survived an average of 1.1 more days free of colorectal cancer, but this difference was not statistically significant (RMST-D: 95% CI -0.13-2.3; RMTL-R: 0.72, 95% CI 0.49-1.07).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this reanalysis of the NordICC data, no evidence of improvement in survival outcomes for participants invited to undergo colonoscopy compared to usual care was identified, even when assuming that all invited participants did undergo colonoscopy. Thus, our results do not support the use of colonoscopy as a population-wide screening test as a mean to decrease colorectal cancer incidence or death.</p><p><strong>Registry: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9129,"journal":{"name":"BMC Gastroenterology","volume":"24 1","pages":"414"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03506-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Colonoscopy as a common screening practice to prevent colorectal cancer lacks strong evidence. NordICC, the first randomized trial of colonoscopy screening, reported no clear clinical benefit for colonoscopy in the intention-to-screen population with suggested benefit in the risk of colorectal incidence and cancer-specific mortality in the per-protocol analyses. However, although the study was designed to perform survival analysis, no survival outcomes were reported since the underlying assumption for hazard ratio was not valid. We aimed to assess whether colonoscopy screening is associated with improved survival outcomes compared with usual care.

Methods: We reconstructed patient-level data from the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the primary endpoints reported in NordICC for the intention-to-screen and adjusted per-protocol populations. The restricted-mean survival time difference (RMST-D) and restricted-mean time loss ratio (RMTL-R), which are robust alternatives to the hazard ratio without specific model assumptions, were calculated for colorectal cancer incidence and death.

Results: In this study, no significant difference in colorectal cancer incidence over 10 years was found in the intention-to-screen population (RMST-D: -0.68 days, 95% CI -3.9-2.6; RMTL-R: 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.22) or in the per-protocol analysis population (RMST-D: -2.9 days, 95% CI -6.5-0.67; RMTL-R: 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.35). In the intention-to-screen population, inviting individuals to colonoscopy did not improve colorectal-cancer death (RMST-D: -0.29 days, 95% CI -1.6-1.0; RMTL-R: 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.48). Over 10 years, in the per-protocol analysis, individuals who underwent colonoscopy survived an average of 1.1 more days free of colorectal cancer, but this difference was not statistically significant (RMST-D: 95% CI -0.13-2.3; RMTL-R: 0.72, 95% CI 0.49-1.07).

Conclusions: In this reanalysis of the NordICC data, no evidence of improvement in survival outcomes for participants invited to undergo colonoscopy compared to usual care was identified, even when assuming that all invited participants did undergo colonoscopy. Thus, our results do not support the use of colonoscopy as a population-wide screening test as a mean to decrease colorectal cancer incidence or death.

Registry: Not applicable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全民结肠镜筛查的生存结果:NordICC 数据的再分析。
背景:结肠镜检查作为预防结直肠癌的常用筛查方法缺乏有力证据。作为结肠镜筛查的首个随机试验,NordICC 报告称,在有意接受筛查的人群中,结肠镜检查没有明显的临床益处,但在按方案分析中,结肠直肠癌发病率和癌症特异性死亡率的风险显示出了益处。然而,尽管该研究旨在进行生存分析,但由于危险比的基本假设不成立,因此没有报告生存结果。我们的目的是评估与常规治疗相比,结肠镜筛查是否能改善生存结果:我们根据 NordICC 报告的主要终点的 Kaplan-Meier 估计器重建了意向筛查人群和调整后的按方案人群的患者水平数据。计算了结直肠癌发病率和死亡率的受限平均生存时间差(RMST-D)和受限平均时间损失比(RMTL-R),它们是危险比的稳健替代方法,无需特定的模型假设:在这项研究中,无论是意向筛查人群(RMST-D:-0.68 天,95% CI -3.9-2.6;RMTL-R:1.04,95% CI 0.88-1.22)还是按方案分析人群(RMST-D:-2.9 天,95% CI -6.5-0.67;RMTL-R:1.15,95% CI 0.97-1.35),10 年内结直肠癌发病率均无明显差异。在意向筛查人群中,邀请个人进行结肠镜检查并不会改善结直肠癌死亡(RMST-D:-0.29 天,95% CI -1.6-1.0; RMTL-R:1.07,95% CI 0.78-1.48)。在10年的按方案分析中,接受结肠镜检查的人平均多存活1.1天,未患结肠直肠癌,但这一差异无统计学意义(RMST-D:95% CI -0.13-2.3;RMTL-R:0.72,95% CI 0.49-1.07):在此次对NordICC数据的重新分析中,即使假定所有受邀者都接受了结肠镜检查,也没有发现与常规治疗相比,受邀者接受结肠镜检查后的生存结果有所改善的证据。因此,我们的结果并不支持将结肠镜检查作为一种全民筛查手段来降低结直肠癌的发病率或死亡率:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Gastroenterology
BMC Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
465
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Gastroenterology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: reanalysis of the NordICC data. The long-term impact of post-cholecystectomy major bile duct injury on liver stiffness. Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis. Impact of perioperative immunonutrition on postoperative outcomes in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Efficacy and safety of tanshinone IIA in combination with mesalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a Systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1