MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390059465 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2023.808

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals Younger Than 50 Years

2023· article· en· W4390059465 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara D. Khangura, Carolyn Spry

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)ColonoscopyRetrospective cohort studyCohortCancerColorectal cancer screeningCohort studyDemographyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

What Is the Issue? Incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals younger than 50 years in Canada is rising, despite existing recommendations in Canada advising that colorectal cancer screening be initiated at 50 years. In response to the also increasing incidence of colorectal cancer observed in other jurisdictions, screening for colorectal cancer in individuals of average risk younger than 50 years has been recommended. These factors have prompted reconsideration of current Canadian guidelines regarding the age at which colorectal cancer screening should be initiated. What Did We Do? To inform considerations about the age at which colorectal cancer screening should best be initiated, CADTH identified and summarized studies comparing colorectal cancer screening in individuals of average risk younger than 50 years with either no screening or screening in individuals of average risk aged 50 years and older. An information specialist conducted a search of peer-reviewed and grey literature sources. Recommendations from evidence-based guidelines for screening individuals of average risk younger than 50 years were also sought and summarized. What Did We Find? Data from 1 retrospective cohort study in the US conducted in a large sample across 13 years suggested there is higher incidence of colorectal cancer among individuals between the ages of 45 and 49 years who underwent screening colonoscopy than in those between the ages of 50 and 54 years. Data from a retrospective cohort study conducted in Greece with a limited sample size across 1 year of observation demonstrated no difference in the cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals of average risk younger than 50 years or 50 years and older. Estimates from 4 modelling studies (1 of which was Canadian) that investigated screening in individuals younger than 50 years indicate that life-years may be gained, colorectal cancer cases and deaths may be reduced, but that numbers of lifetime colonoscopies and complications from screening would likely increase. One economic evaluation conducted in Portugal concluded that there is no cost-utility for colorectal cancer screening in individuals of average risk younger than 50 years at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €39,760, given current estimates of incidence in this age cohort. Seven evidence-based guidelines identified recommend that colorectal cancer screening be initiated in individuals of average risk at age 45 years, whereas 1 guideline recommends against screening in individuals of average risk beginning at 45 years and 1 guideline recommends against screening beginning at age 40 years. Most evidence-based guidelines highlight the lack of empirical evidence describing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness as limitations when developing recommendations. What Does It Mean? Empirical data describing the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in individuals of average risk younger than 50 years remain limited, although a preponderance of evidence-based guidelines identified by this review recommend in favour of doing so. Modelled data estimate that colorectal cancer screening in individuals younger than 50 years may produce benefits, although these estimates are vulnerable to model inputs and assumptions (perfect adherence to screening protocols, for instance), and may not adequately account for the potential harms of screening. Additional opportunities for maximizing the benefits of colorectal cancer screening may include targeting increased uptake among disadvantaged and high-risk groups, including those 50 years and older. Broader considerations that address societal benefit and costs — including health equity and implementation — are essential to inform decision-making concerning colorectal cancer screening in individuals of average risk younger than 50 years.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,934
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,130

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,029
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,052
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesMême sujetColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionTravaux en français237 207