Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Protocol

Prevalence and risk factors for post-investigation colorectal cancer (“interval cancer”) after computed tomographic colonography: protocol for a systematic review

Authors: Andrew A. Plumb, Anu Obaro, Thomas Fanshawe, Ulysses S. Torres, Rachel Baldwin-Cleland, Steve Halligan, David Burling

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and important disease. There are different tests for diagnosis, one of which is computed tomographic colonography (CTC). No test is perfect, and patients with normal CTC may subsequently develop CRC (either because it was overlooked originally, or because it has developed in the interim). This is termed post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) or “interval cancer”. How frequently this occurs after CTC is not known. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to use the primary literature to estimate the PICRC rate after CTC, and explore associated factors.

Methods

Primary studies reporting post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) rates after CTC will be identified from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Peer-reviewed studies published after 1994 (the year CTC was introduced) will be included and the rate of PICRC within 36 months of CTC recorded. Data will be extracted from selected studies for a random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity, risk of bias and publication bias will be assessed, and exploratory analysis will examine factors associated with higher PICRC rates in the literature.

Conclusion

PICRC rates are the ultimate benchmark of diagnostic quality for colonic investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify and synthesise evidence to determine PICRC rates after CTC and explore factors that may contribute to higher rates.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016042437).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ferlay J, Shin H-R, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–917.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Towler B, Watson E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;24(1):CD001216.
4.
Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1975;36(6):2251–70.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(6):2088–100.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ. 2014;348:g2467. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​g2467.
7.
Wolff WI. Colonoscopy: history and development. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989;84(9):1017–25.PubMed
8.
9.
Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011;259(2):393–405.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
de Haan MC, van Gelder RE, Graser A, Bipat S, Stoker J. Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(8):1747–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Di Giulio E, Zullo A, Laghi A, et al. Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31(2):210–7.PubMed
12.
Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Bernstein CN. Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(12):2588–96.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, Rothwell DM, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(1):96–102.CrossRefPubMed
14.
le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ, Bakker CM, Keulen ET, de Ridder RJ, et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut. 2014;63(6):957–63.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Morris EJ, Rutter MD, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, Valori R. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut. 2015;64(8):1248–56.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Cooper GS, Xu F, Barnholtz Sloan JS, Schluchter MD, Koroukian SM. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in Medicare beneficiaries. Cancer. 2012;118(12):3044–52.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH, Singh H, Samadder NJ. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(9):1375–89.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Vining DJ, Gelfland DW. Non-invasive colonoscopy using helical CT scanning, 3D reconstruction and virtual reality. 23rd Meeting and Postgraduate Course of the Society of Gastrointestinal Radiologists. Maui; 1994.
21.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Smith RA, Brooks D, Andrews KS, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(3):130–60.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
24.
R, Core, Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015.
25.
Arends LR, Hunink MG, Stijnen T. Meta-analysis of summary survival curve data. Stat Med. 2008;27(22):4381–96.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867–72.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006;25(20):3443–57.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
32.
33.
Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Bartram CI, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology. 2005;237(3):893–904.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(8):635–50.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Chaparro M, Gisbert JP, Del Campo L, Cantero J, Maté J. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of polyps and colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Digestion. 2009;80(1):1–17.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Pooler BD, Kim DH, Lam VP, Burnside ES, Pickhardt PJ. CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): benchmark values from a clinical screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1232–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Lung PF, Burling D, Kallarackel L, Muckian J, Ilangovan R, Gupta A, et al. Implementation of a new CT colonography service: 5 year experience. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(6):597–605.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Edwards R, et al. Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9873):1194–202.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Prevalence and risk factors for post-investigation colorectal cancer (“interval cancer”) after computed tomographic colonography: protocol for a systematic review
Authors
Andrew A. Plumb
Anu Obaro
Thomas Fanshawe
Ulysses S. Torres
Rachel Baldwin-Cleland
Steve Halligan
David Burling
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0432-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

The impact of social activities, social networks, social support and social relationships on the cognitive functioning of healthy older adults: a systematic review

Research

Complications and health-related quality of life after robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of four RCTs

Protocol

Adverse mental health outcomes in breast cancer survivors compared to women who did not have cancer: systematic review protocol

Research

Use of social network analysis methods to study professional advice and performance among healthcare providers: a systematic review

Protocol

Protocol for a systematic review of the factors associated with binge drinking among adolescents and young adults

Research

Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study