文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

结直肠癌筛查:美国预防服务工作组的更新证据报告和系统评价。

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

机构信息

Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.

Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington3Currently with RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

出版信息

JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2576-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332.


DOI:10.1001/jama.2016.3332
PMID:27305422
Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.

摘要

重要性:结直肠癌(CRC)仍然是美国发病率和死亡率的主要原因。 目的:系统地审查 CRC 筛查的有效性、诊断准确性和危害。 数据来源:从 2008 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 12 月 31 日期间,通过 MEDLINE、PubMed 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库进行了相关研究的搜索,通过 2016 年 2 月 23 日进行了监测。 研究选择:在一般结直肠癌风险的无症状人群中进行的英语研究。 数据提取和综合:两名审查员独立评估文章,并从公平或高质量的研究中提取相关研究数据。进行了随机效应荟萃分析。 主要结果和措施:结直肠癌发病率和死亡率、检测 CRC 或腺瘤的试验准确性以及严重不良事件。 结果:四项评估一次性或两次软性乙状结肠镜检查(n=458002)的实用随机临床试验(RCT)与无筛查相比,CRC 特异性死亡率降低(发病率比,0.73;95%置信区间,0.66-0.82)。五项具有多次两年一次基于愈创木脂的粪便潜血检测的 RCT(n=419966)显示 CRC 特异性死亡率降低(相对风险[RR],0.91;95%置信区间,0.84-0.98,在 19.5 年时 RR,0.78;95%置信区间,0.65-0.93,在 30 年时)。七项关于带有肠道准备的计算机断层结肠造影术(CTC)的研究表明,对 6 毫米及以上的腺瘤进行个人检测的敏感性和特异性与结肠镜检查相当(敏感性从 73%[95%置信区间,58%-84%]到 98%[95%置信区间,91%-100%];特异性从 89%[95%置信区间,84%-93%]到 91%[95%置信区间,88%-93%]);差异和不精确性可能是由于研究设计或 CTC 方案的差异。结肠镜检查检测 6 毫米或更大的腺瘤的敏感性范围为 75%(95%置信区间,63%-84%)至 93%(95%置信区间,88%-96%)。基于单个粪便标本,最常评估的粪便免疫化学检测(FIT)家族具有良好的敏感性(范围,73%-88%)和特异性(范围,90%-96%)。一项研究(n=9989)发现,FIT 加粪便 DNA 检测在检测 CRC 方面比 FIT 单独检测(92%)具有更好的敏感性,但特异性较低(84%)。在无症状人群中,结肠镜检查的严重不良事件包括穿孔(4/10000 例,95%置信区间,10000 例中有 2-5 例)和大出血(8/10000 例,95%置信区间,10000 例中有 5-14 例)。CT 结肠造影术可能会因低剂量电离辐射暴露或识别结外发现而产生危害。 结论和相关性:在一般风险成年人中,结肠镜检查、软性乙状结肠镜检查、CTC 和粪便检测具有不同水平的证据支持其使用、检测癌症和前体病变的能力以及严重不良事件的风险。尽管 CRC 筛查有大量支持证据,但仍需要进一步研究。

相似文献

[1]
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

JAMA. 2016-6-21

[2]

2016-6

[3]

2021-5

[4]
Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-6

[5]
Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Health Technol Assess. 2010-6

[6]
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

JAMA. 2021-5-18

[7]
Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-1-8

[8]
Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Ann Intern Med. 2008-11-4

[9]
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19

[10]
Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Health Technol Assess. 2017-5

引用本文的文献

[1]
Pragmatic Implementation Study of a Computer-Aided Detection Device on Colonoscopy Outcomes at a Trainee-Dominated Academic County Hospital.

Dig Dis Sci. 2025-8-26

[2]
Bioinformatic screen with clinical validation for the identification of novel stool based mRNA biomarkers for the detection of colorectal lesions including advanced adenoma.

Sci Rep. 2025-8-11

[3]
Evidence Based Gait Analysis Interpretation Tools (EB-GAIT) treatment recommendation and outcome prediction models to support decision-making based on clinical gait analysis data.

PLoS One. 2025-7-29

[4]
Tuning vision foundation models for rectal cancer segmentation from CT scans.

Commun Med (Lond). 2025-7-1

[5]
Optimising colorectal cancer screening strategies and target populations in budget-constrained regions through cost-effectiveness analysis: a case from eastern China.

BMJ Open. 2025-5-2

[6]
Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

DEN Open. 2025-4-16

[7]
A mobile app to improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening and post polypectomy surveillance guidelines.

BMC Gastroenterol. 2025-3-27

[8]
The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO): Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer, 2024 update.

Cancer Commun (Lond). 2025-3

[9]
Examining Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening and the Role of Online Medical Record Use: Findings From a Cross-Sectional Study of a National Survey.

JMIR Cancer. 2024-12-4

[10]
Unveiling the Value of Meta-Analysis in Disease Prevention and Control: A Comprehensive Review.

Medicina (Kaunas). 2024-10-5

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索