Category Ranking
98%
Total Visits
921
Avg Visit Duration
2 minutes
Citations
20
Article Abstract
Background And Aim: Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are commonly used screening methods for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC), but their effects on survival have not been compared. We compared survival outcomes in patients with CRC according to the exposure history to colonoscopy or FIT before diagnosis of CRC.
Methods: We performed a nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study using Korean national-insurance claims data. In total, 24 875 patients with CRC diagnosed in 2012 were included. The patients were divided into three groups in terms of examinations performed during the 10 years prior to CRC diagnosis: the colonoscopy group, the FIT group, and the never-screened group. Survival outcomes were compared among the three groups. The colonoscopy group and FIT group were matched using propensity score-matching method.
Results: The cohort consisted of 9619 patients in the colonoscopy group, 6936 patients in the FIT group, and 8320 patients in the never-screened group. The 5-year overall survival rates were 74.1% in the colonoscopy group, 65.9% in the FIT group, and 59.6% in the never-screened group (P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.59) in the colonoscopy group and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82) in the FIT group compared with the never-screened group. In the matched cohort, the adjusted hazard ratios for death was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) in the colonoscopy group compared with the FIT group.
Conclusion: Colonoscopy is a more effective method for reducing mortality in patients with CRC compared with FIT.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15924 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Safety of artificial intelligence-assisted optical diagnosis for leaving colorectal polyps in situ during colonoscopy (PRACTICE): a non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol
October 2025
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Background: Guidelines recommend leaving in situ rectosigmoid polyps diagnosed during colonoscopy that are 5 mm or smaller if the endoscopist optically predicts them to be non-neoplastic. However, no randomised controlled trial has been done to examine the efficacy and safety of this strategy.
Methods: This open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial enrolled adults age 18 years or older undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or clinical indications across four Italian centres.
Anatomical location of colorectal neoplasia in patients with positive stool tests (mt-sDNA or FIT): Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.
Gastrointest Endosc
September 2025
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH; Department of Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; NH Colonoscopy Registry, Lebanon, NH.
Background And Aims: Data comparing the location of polyp yield in patients with positive stool tests can aid screening test selection. We conducted a cross sectional analysis of New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to compare the location, left versus right side of the colon, of neoplasia detected on colonoscopy following a mt-sDNA+ or FIT+ test as compared to a reference group having colonoscopy without a stool test.
Methods: Our outcomes were advanced lesions (adenoma and/or serrated polyp, including cancer), advanced adenomas (AA), or advanced serrated polyps (ASP), stratified by location.
Colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional colonoscopy in patients with colonic diverticulitis: a randomised controlled superiority trial.
Endoscopy
September 2025
Department of Sugery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Background And Study Aim: Follow-up colonoscopy after an episode with colonic diverticulitis (CD) is standard in the Danish healthcare system to exclude malignancy. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a diagnostic alternative to colonoscopy. The purpose of this study was to compare CCE with colonoscopy after an episode with CD with primary focus on patient-reported outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe efficacy and safety of simethicone for gastrointestinal preparation prior to pediatric endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Pediatr
September 2025
Department of Pediatrics, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of School of Medicine, and International School of Medicine, International Institutes of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Yiwu, 322000, China.
To evaluate the bubble-eliminating efficacy and safety of simethicone when used for gastrointestinal preparation before pediatric endoscopy. We conducted a comprehensive Literature search from inception to April 5, 2025, in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP Information Database, and Wan Fang Med Database. For the quantitative analysis, mean difference (MD) was used to assess continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFComparing low-volume vs. intermediate volume bowel preparation and its impact on work and tolerability: An open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial.
Endoscopy
September 2025
Dept. of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Background: Bowel preparation is essential for colonoscopy but may deter patients. Although low-volume laxatives are better tolerated, their impact on patient-reported outcomes remains unclear. We compared low- and intermediate volume bowel preparation and assessed the impact on tolerability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF