User login
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
- A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
- Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
- Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
- The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
- Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
- Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
- Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
- A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
- Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
- Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
- The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
- Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
- Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
- Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
- A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
- Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
- Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
- The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
- Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
- Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
- Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.