Accounting for differential exclusions in the Nordic-European initiative on colorectal cancer trial discloses stronger-than-reported effects of screening colonoscopy

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hermann Brenner , Tim Holland-Letz , Michael Hoffmeister , Thomas Heisser
{"title":"Accounting for differential exclusions in the Nordic-European initiative on colorectal cancer trial discloses stronger-than-reported effects of screening colonoscopy","authors":"Hermann Brenner ,&nbsp;Tim Holland-Letz ,&nbsp;Michael Hoffmeister ,&nbsp;Thomas Heisser","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Recently, results on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality reduction by the offer of screening colonoscopy were reported for the first time from a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial. Despite randomization, there was a substantially lower proportion of postrandomization exclusions of CRC cases due to cancer registry-recorded date of diagnosis before recruitment in the invited group than in the usual-care group. We aimed to evaluate the impact of such differential exclusions on the trial's effect estimates on CRC risk.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We compared reported postrandomization exclusions of CRC cases due to cancer registry-recorded date of diagnosis, and we derived adjusted effect estimates on CRC risk accounting for the reported differential postrandomization exclusion of CRC cases in the invited group and the usual-care group.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Reported postrandomization exclusion proportions of CRC cases were originally reported as 52/31,472 (0.17%) and 159/63,133 (0.25%) in the invited and usual-care group, respectively, (<em>P</em> &lt; .005) in an analysis, including participants from all four NordICCstudy countries and as 52/28,277 (0.20%) and 164/56,529 (0.29%) in the recent analysis of 10-year follow-up data from three of the countries (<em>P</em> = .018). Accounting for the differential exclusion proportions increased the estimated CRC risk reduction (95% CI) from originally reported 18% (7%–30%) to 25% (95% CI 13%–35%) in intention-to-screen analysis. Estimated reduction of CRC risk among screening attenders increased from originally reported 31% (17%–45%) to 50% (25%–69%) in adjusted per-protocol analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Accounting for differential postrandomization exclusions of CRC cases leads to stronger-than-reported effect estimates in the so far only RCT on long-term effects of screening colonoscopy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"180 ","pages":"Article 111669"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000022","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Recently, results on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality reduction by the offer of screening colonoscopy were reported for the first time from a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial. Despite randomization, there was a substantially lower proportion of postrandomization exclusions of CRC cases due to cancer registry-recorded date of diagnosis before recruitment in the invited group than in the usual-care group. We aimed to evaluate the impact of such differential exclusions on the trial's effect estimates on CRC risk.

Study Design and Setting

We compared reported postrandomization exclusions of CRC cases due to cancer registry-recorded date of diagnosis, and we derived adjusted effect estimates on CRC risk accounting for the reported differential postrandomization exclusion of CRC cases in the invited group and the usual-care group.

Results

Reported postrandomization exclusion proportions of CRC cases were originally reported as 52/31,472 (0.17%) and 159/63,133 (0.25%) in the invited and usual-care group, respectively, (P < .005) in an analysis, including participants from all four NordICCstudy countries and as 52/28,277 (0.20%) and 164/56,529 (0.29%) in the recent analysis of 10-year follow-up data from three of the countries (P = .018). Accounting for the differential exclusion proportions increased the estimated CRC risk reduction (95% CI) from originally reported 18% (7%–30%) to 25% (95% CI 13%–35%) in intention-to-screen analysis. Estimated reduction of CRC risk among screening attenders increased from originally reported 31% (17%–45%) to 50% (25%–69%) in adjusted per-protocol analysis.

Conclusion

Accounting for differential postrandomization exclusions of CRC cases leads to stronger-than-reported effect estimates in the so far only RCT on long-term effects of screening colonoscopy.
考虑到NordICC试验中的差异排除,结肠镜筛查的效果比报道的要强。
目的:最近,一项随机对照试验(RCT)——北欧-欧洲结直肠癌倡议(NordICC)试验首次报道了结肠镜筛查降低结直肠癌(CRC)发病率和死亡率的结果。尽管进行了随机化,但随机化后由于招募前癌症登记记录的诊断日期而排除CRC病例的比例在邀请组中明显低于常规护理组。我们的目的是评估这种差异排除对试验对结直肠癌风险的影响。研究设计和设置:我们比较了因癌症登记诊断日期而报道的随机化后排除的CRC病例,并对邀请组和常规护理组报道的随机化后排除CRC病例的差异得出了CRC风险的调整效应估计。结果:最初报道的随机化后CRC病例排除比例在邀请组和常规组分别为52/ 31472(0.17%)和159/ 63133(0.25%)。结论:考虑到随机化后CRC病例排除的差异,在迄今为止唯一的关于结肠镜筛查长期效果的随机对照试验中,结果比报道的效果估计更强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信