A95 THE EFFICACY OF SURVEILLANCE COLONOSCOPY ON SURVIVAL IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE ASSOCIATED COLORECTAL CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW & META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). This risk is related to disease extent, duration and severity. Current guidelines recommend routine colonoscopy 8–10 years after the initial onset of disease. However, no large controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of surveillance colonoscopy and the benefit remains unproven. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate whether surveillance colonoscopy for CRC impacts the survival of patients with IBD. A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was undertaken to identify studies that examined the impact of surveillance colonoscopy on overall survival of patients with IBD associated CRC. Three hundred and forty-five studies were screened by title and abstract, followed by a detailed review of twenty three studies. Only studies that included a control group of IBD patients (a surveillance versus a non-surveillance arm) were included in this analysis. Effect estimates (hazard ratios [HR]) and confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, with a fixed-effects model created to estimate the effects. Cochrane’s Q and I2 -statistics were used to assess study heterogeneity. Additionally Dukes stage of the tumour was compared between the surveillance and non-surveillance groups using the Fisher’s exact test. Four relevant studies were identified, and this included a total of 334 patients. Of these patients, 118 underwent surveillance colonoscopy, while 216 did not. Surveillance colonoscopy was associated with improved overall survival, with the HR of death being 0.354 in the surveillance group (95% CI 0.217–0.578; p<0.001). Furthermore, these studies were not found to be heterogeneous (Q = 1.727, P = 0.631, I2 = 0. 000). Analysis of pathology data from two of the studies demonstrated that in the surveillance group tumours were more likely to be diagnosed at an earlier stage (Dukes A, P < 0.001), than in the group that did not undergo surveillance where tumours were more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage (Dukes C and D, P = 0.018 and P = 0.017). Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that surveillance colonoscopy does in fact improve overall survival in patients with IBD and suggests that surveillance colonoscopy additionally provides the advantage of detecting earlier staged colorectal tumours than when no surveillance is performed. None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".