Differential efficacy of screening modalities for colorectal neoplasms: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author:

Ashraf Muhammad Talal1,Sohail Affan1,Khan Muhammad Khuzzaim Shakeel1,Khalid Muhammad Hamza Awais2,Aslam Muaaz3,Uddin Naseer1,Khan Anosh Aslam4,Ochani Rohan Kumar5,Surani Salim6

Affiliation:

1. Dow University of Health Sciences

2. Allama Iqbal Medical College

3. Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Medical and Dental College

4. Monmouth Medical Center

5. SUNY Upstate Medical University

6. Aga Khan University

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC), being a major global health problem and the second most common cancer, leads to more than 550,000 deaths per year globally. CRC usually arises from precancerous growths called adenomas. The investigations, flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), and colonoscopy can help in detecting high-risk precancerous growths and malignant tumors. Most invasive and high-risk colorectal tumors cause occult bleeding, which can be detected by fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). All these methods can be used to detect malignancies and benign colorectal tumors in patients at risk of developing cancer. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness of gFOBT, FIT, FS and colonoscopy for the early detection of CRC. Methods: Search was conducted for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in relevant databases (1975-2022), assessed the risk of bias, and retrieved data from relevant RCTs. The participants either underwent screening through the above-mentioned techniques or received no screening at all. Participants who did not undergo any screening were tested as a common control for all screening interventions. Primary outcomes were the incidence of CRC, the incidence of high-risk adenoma, all-cause mortality, and CRC-related mortality. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI estimates were calculated using the method of Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: We identified 11 RCTs involving over one million participants. The reported mean age was 61.87 (45-80) years, and the overall gender distribution was balanced between all the comparison arms. The overall mean prospective follow-up was 8.05 (5.5-11) years after the initial screening was performed. FS offered the greatest reduction in CRC findings [OR = 0.733, 95% CI (0.666, 0.807)] when compared to no screening group. Colonoscopy was associated with a higher detection of CRC as the group had an increased number of high-risk patients [OR = 2.28; 95% CI (1.95, 2.67)]. Biennial FIT is associated with the lowest risk of high-risk adenoma detection [OR = 0.293; 95% CI (0.259,0.330)]. Annual gFOBT is associated with the greatest reduction in the risk of CRC-related mortality [OR 0.757; 95% CI (0.584, 0.977)]. FS is associated with the greatest reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality compared to the no-screening group [OR 0.801; 95% CI (0.772, 0.832)]. Conclusion: Colonoscopy is the most effective screening technique in detecting the incidence of CRC and as well as the incidence of CRC-related mortality. Biennial gFOBT is the most effective non-invasive test and significantly detects the greatest risk of high-risk adenoma development. Sigmoidoscopy is associated with the lowest risk of an all-cause mortality.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference22 articles.

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin [Internet]. 2021 May [cited 2022 Nov 22];71(3):209–49. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33538338/

2. Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut [Internet]. 2017 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Nov 22];66(4):683–91. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26818619/

3. Leslie A, Carey FA, Pratt NR, Steele RJC. The colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Br J Surg [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2022 Nov 22];89(7):845–60. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12081733/

4. Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. Br J Surg [Internet]. 2013 Jan [cited 2022 Nov 22];100(1):55–65. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23212620/

5. Jodal HC, Helsingen LM, Anderson JC, Lytvyn L, Vandvik PO, Emilsson L. Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2019 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Dec 8];9(10). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31578199.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3