Back

Screening Implications for Distribution of Colorectal Cancer Subsite by Age

Lin, G.; Hein, D.; Liu, P.-H.; Singal, A.; Sanford, N.

2023-07-23 gastroenterology
10.1101/2023.07.18.23292663 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesThe effectiveness of colonoscopy to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality is extrapolated from cohort studies in the absence of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, whereas flexible sigmoidoscopy is supported by RCT data and may be easier to implement in practice. We characterized the anatomic distribution of CRC to determine the proportion that is visible with sigmoidoscopy. MethodsPatients with a primary diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (2000-2020). Tumors from the rectum to descending colon were categorized as visible by sigmoidoscopy, whereas more proximal tumors as requiring colonoscopy. Differential prognosis between tumor locations, stratified by age groups and stage, were assessed using overall restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 2, 5, and 10 years. ResultsAmong 309,466 patients, 58% had tumors visible by sigmoidoscopy, including 73% of those under age 50 (OR 2.10, 95%CI 2.03-2.16 age <45, OR 2.20, 95%CI 2.13-2.27 age 45-49 versus age >50). Male sex (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.51-1.56) and Asian or Pacific Islander race (OR 1.60, 95%CI 1.56-1.64) were also positively associated with tumors visualizable by sigmoidoscopy. Across age groups, for local disease, RMST was comparable for tumors visible versus not visible on sigmoidoscopy. For regional and metastatic cancer, patients with tumors visible by sigmoidoscopy had improved RMST versus those with more proximal tumors. ConclusionsMost CRC arise in locations visible by flexible sigmoidoscopy. Flexible sigmoidoscopy should be considered as a viable option for CRC screening, particularly in younger patients unwilling or unable to undergo colonoscopy.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.