Colorectal adenocarcinomas diagnosed following a negative faecal immunochemical test show high‐risk pathological features in a colon screening programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used every 2 years to screen average-risk British Columbians aged 50-74 years, with follow-up colonoscopy for positive results. Non-screen-detected colorectal adenocarcinomas are defined as those detected within 25 months following a negative FIT. We aimed to more clearly characterise these malignancies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A medical chart and focused pathology review of colorectal malignancies from 926 individuals who completed FIT in the British Columbia Colon Screening Program in 2014, and whose pathology reports were available for review, was conducted. This cohort was divided into two groups: individuals with colorectal adenocarcinomas diagnosed following a positive FIT (screen-detected) and individuals with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed within 25 months of a negative FIT (FIT-interval cancers). Rates of clinically relevant pathological parameters, as outlined in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 8th edition, were compared between the screen-detected and FIT-interval cancer groups. A total of 876 screen-detected and 50 FIT-interval cancers were identified. FIT-interval cancers exhibited higher rates of high-grade differentiation (including poorly differentiated and undifferentiated cases; P < 0.01) and aggressive histotype (signet ring cell and mucinous carcinomas; P < 0.01) than did screen-detected cancers after Bonferroni correction. Colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed after a negative FIT may therefore be associated with worse prognostic determinants than screen-detected cancers. CONCLUSION: FIT-interval cancers are associated with high-risk pathological features; the possibility that more aggressive, fast-growing lesions which arise in the interval after truly negative FITs cannot be ruled out. Further study of a larger cohort of FIT-interval cancers controlling for interaction among the different pathologic parameters will be undertaken.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".