被低估的柔性乙状结肠镜筛查预防效果:随机试验的重新分析和荟萃分析

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH European Journal of Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-04-20 DOI:10.1007/s10654-024-01120-w
Hermann Brenner, Thomas Heisser, Rafael Cardoso, Michael Hoffmeister
{"title":"被低估的柔性乙状结肠镜筛查预防效果:随机试验的重新分析和荟萃分析","authors":"Hermann Brenner, Thomas Heisser, Rafael Cardoso, Michael Hoffmeister","doi":"10.1007/s10654-024-01120-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is less invasive, resource intensive and costly than colonoscopy, is among the recommended screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC). Four large randomized trials consistently reported statistically significant, albeit modest effects of screening by FS on CRC incidence. However, their effect estimates included cancers that were already prevalent at recruitment and could not have been prevented by screening. We performed a re-analysis and meta-analysis of two of the trials (including the largest one) to estimate reduction of truly incident cases by a single FS offered between 55 and 64 years of age among the “at risk study population” without prevalent CRC at recruitment. In meta-analyses of data reported after more than 15 years of follow-up, relative risk (95% CI) in intention-to-screen and per-protocol analyses were 0.71 (0.66–0.76) and 0.59 (0.55–0.65) for any CRC, and 0.52 (0.47–0.57) and 0.34 (0.30–0.39) for distal CRC, respectively. These results indicate much stronger effects than those suggested by the original reports and imply that a single screening FS can prevent approximately two out of three distal incident CRC cases within 15 + years of follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":11907,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Epidemiology","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The underestimated preventive effects of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: re-analysis and meta-analysis of randomized trials\",\"authors\":\"Hermann Brenner, Thomas Heisser, Rafael Cardoso, Michael Hoffmeister\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10654-024-01120-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is less invasive, resource intensive and costly than colonoscopy, is among the recommended screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC). Four large randomized trials consistently reported statistically significant, albeit modest effects of screening by FS on CRC incidence. However, their effect estimates included cancers that were already prevalent at recruitment and could not have been prevented by screening. We performed a re-analysis and meta-analysis of two of the trials (including the largest one) to estimate reduction of truly incident cases by a single FS offered between 55 and 64 years of age among the “at risk study population” without prevalent CRC at recruitment. In meta-analyses of data reported after more than 15 years of follow-up, relative risk (95% CI) in intention-to-screen and per-protocol analyses were 0.71 (0.66–0.76) and 0.59 (0.55–0.65) for any CRC, and 0.52 (0.47–0.57) and 0.34 (0.30–0.39) for distal CRC, respectively. These results indicate much stronger effects than those suggested by the original reports and imply that a single screening FS can prevent approximately two out of three distal incident CRC cases within 15 + years of follow-up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01120-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01120-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与结肠镜检查相比,柔性乙状结肠镜检查(FS)的创伤性更小、资源消耗更少、成本更低,是结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的推荐方案之一。四项大型随机试验一致报告称,通过 FS 筛查对 CRC 发病率的影响虽然不大,但在统计学上具有显著性。但是,它们的效果估计值包括了招募时已经流行的癌症,而这些癌症是无法通过筛查来预防的。我们对其中的两项试验(包括最大的一项试验)进行了重新分析和荟萃分析,以估计在 55 到 64 岁之间的 "高危研究人群 "中,在招募时没有流行的 CRC 的情况下,提供一次 FS 可减少真正的发病病例。在对超过 15 年的随访数据进行的荟萃分析中,意向性筛查和按方案分析中任何 CRC 的相对风险(95% CI)分别为 0.71(0.66-0.76)和 0.59(0.55-0.65),远端 CRC 的相对风险分别为 0.52(0.47-0.57)和 0.34(0.30-0.39)。这些结果表明,筛查的效果比最初的报告所提出的效果要强得多,这意味着在 15+ 年的随访期内,一次筛查 FS 可以预防约三分之二的远端 CRC 病例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
The underestimated preventive effects of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: re-analysis and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is less invasive, resource intensive and costly than colonoscopy, is among the recommended screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC). Four large randomized trials consistently reported statistically significant, albeit modest effects of screening by FS on CRC incidence. However, their effect estimates included cancers that were already prevalent at recruitment and could not have been prevented by screening. We performed a re-analysis and meta-analysis of two of the trials (including the largest one) to estimate reduction of truly incident cases by a single FS offered between 55 and 64 years of age among the “at risk study population” without prevalent CRC at recruitment. In meta-analyses of data reported after more than 15 years of follow-up, relative risk (95% CI) in intention-to-screen and per-protocol analyses were 0.71 (0.66–0.76) and 0.59 (0.55–0.65) for any CRC, and 0.52 (0.47–0.57) and 0.34 (0.30–0.39) for distal CRC, respectively. These results indicate much stronger effects than those suggested by the original reports and imply that a single screening FS can prevent approximately two out of three distal incident CRC cases within 15 + years of follow-up.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Epidemiology
European Journal of Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
1.50%
发文量
109
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Epidemiology, established in 1985, is a peer-reviewed publication that provides a platform for discussions on epidemiology in its broadest sense. It covers various aspects of epidemiologic research and statistical methods. The journal facilitates communication between researchers, educators, and practitioners in epidemiology, including those in clinical and community medicine. Contributions from diverse fields such as public health, preventive medicine, clinical medicine, health economics, and computational biology and data science, in relation to health and disease, are encouraged. While accepting submissions from all over the world, the journal particularly emphasizes European topics relevant to epidemiology. The published articles consist of empirical research findings, developments in methodology, and opinion pieces.
期刊最新文献
A municipality-specific analysis to investigate persistent increased incidence rates of childhood leukaemia near the nuclear power plant of Krümmel in Germany Pesticides and risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in France: a nationwide spatiotemporal ecological study between 2011 and 2021 Anders Ekbom: Swedish physician and epidemiologist 1947–2024 Updated findings on temporal variation in radiation-effects on cancer mortality in an international cohort of nuclear workers (INWORKS) Placental abruption and perinatal mortality in twins: novel insight into management at preterm versus term gestations
×
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