Effectiveness of Screening Modalities in Colorectal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

被引:57
|
作者
Zhang, Jianping [1 ]
Cheng, Zhiyuan [2 ,4 ]
Ma, Yubao [1 ]
He, Caili [1 ]
Lu, Yongbin [1 ]
Zhao, Yaxue [1 ]
Chang, Xiaoyu [1 ]
Zhang, Yawei [4 ]
Bai, Yana [1 ]
Cheng, Ning [3 ]
机构
[1] Inst Epidemiol & Stat, Sch Publ Hlth, Lanzhou, Gansu, Peoples R China
[2] Lanzhou Univ, Basic Med Coll, Ctr Evidence Based Med, Lanzhou, Gansu, Peoples R China
[3] Lanzhou Univ, Basic Med Coll, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China
[4] Yale Univ, Sch Med, New Haven, CT USA
关键词
Colonoscopy; CRC; Incidence; Mortality; FECAL-OCCULT-BLOOD; RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL; FOLLOW-UP; COLONOSCOPIC POLYPECTOMY; SURVIVAL BENEFIT; MORTALITY; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; COHORT; REDUCTION; DEATH;
D O I
10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.018
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The aim of the study was to evaluate on the effectiveness of screening modalities in the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence and deaths. General meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of CRC incidence and mortality using a search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies from January 1992 to March 2016. A network meta-analysis was performed to synthetically compare the effectiveness of 5 frequently used screening modalities. A total of 44 studies with a focus on mortality from CRC using different screening methods were included. General meta-analysis showed that fecal immunohistochemical testing (FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, combination of fecal occult blood testing and FS screening respectively reduced CRC mortality by 59% (relative risk [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.59), 33% (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.78), 61% (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31-0.50), 38% (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) compared with no screening, whereas guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) reduced CRC-related mortality by 14% (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90). Subgroup analysis showed that summary estimates of reduction in distal CRC mortality and proximal CRC mortality were 26% (95% CI, 62%-89%) and 10% (95% CI, 83%-98%). A network meta-analysis revealed rank probability analysis in which the colonoscopy had a 94.6% probability of being the most effective examination to reduce CRC mortality. In addition, the network meta-analysis estimated odds ratio, which was a 79% reduction (95% CI, 0.09-0.60) in CRC mortality when screening with FIT was compared with annual or biennial gFOBT and colonoscopy was approximately 80% more effective than gFOBT for reducing CRC mortality (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.130.54). Analysis of the effects of different screening methods showed that there was a significant reduction in the incidence of colon cancer, excluding gFOBT. This meta-analysis confirmed that gFOBT, FIT, FS, and colonoscopy were all effective in preventing CRC deaths and a major reduction in distal but not proximal CRC mortality was found. In addition, they were more effective in preventing CRC incidence in addition to gFOBT. The network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective screening for preventing CRC deaths. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:252 / 263
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparative effect of different strategies for the screening of lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Chen, Yancong
    Zhang, Zixuan
    Wang, Huan
    Sun, Xuemei
    Lin, Yali
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH-HEIDELBERG, 2022, 30 (12): : 2937 - 2951
  • [22] Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Observational Studies
    Wu, Xinhui
    Wang, Jingxi
    Ye, Zhen
    Wang, Jin
    Liao, Xibei
    Liv, Mengsi
    Svn, Zhen
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 9
  • [23] Examining the effectiveness of supplementary imaging modalities for breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mizzi, Deborah
    Allely, Clare
    Zarb, Francis
    Kelly, Judith
    Hogg, Peter
    McEntee, Mark
    England, Andrew
    Mercer, Claire
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 154
  • [24] The toll of not screening for colorectal cancer
    Chen, Chen
    Hoffmeister, Michael
    Brenner, Hermann
    EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2017, 11 (01) : 1 - 3
  • [25] Colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy
    Pereyra, Lisandro
    Gomez, Estanislao J.
    Mella, Jose M.
    Cimmino, Daniel G.
    Boerr, Luis A.
    MEDICINA-BUENOS AIRES, 2013, 73 (06) : 567 - 572
  • [26] Alcohol drinking and the risk of colorectal cancer death: a meta-analysis
    Cai, Shaofang
    Li, Yingjun
    Ding, Ye
    Chen, Kun
    Jin, Mingjuan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2014, 23 (06) : 532 - 539
  • [27] Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening
    Ladabaum, Uri
    Dominitz, Jason A.
    Kahi, Charles
    Schoen, Robert E.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 158 (02) : 418 - 432
  • [28] Survival of Colorectal Cancer Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis
    Petrelli, Fausto
    Ghidini, Michele
    Rausa, Emanuele
    Ghidini, Antonio
    Cabiddu, Mary
    Borgonovo, Karen
    Ghilardi, Mara
    Parati, Maria Chiara
    Pietrantonio, Filippo
    Sganzerla, Paolo
    Bossi, Antonio Carlo
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES, 2021, 45 (02) : 186 - 197.e2
  • [29] The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer
    Telford, Jennifer J.
    Levy, Adrian R.
    Sambrook, Jennifer C.
    Zou, Denise
    Enns, Robert A.
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2010, 182 (12) : 1307 - 1313
  • [30] Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for colorectal cancer
    Barzi, Afsaneh
    Lenz, Heinz-Josef
    Quinn, David I.
    Sadeghi, Sarmad
    CANCER, 2017, 123 (09) : 1516 - 1527