METHODS: Fifty selected CRC cases of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) which were identified immunohistochemically in the previous study were subjected to MSI analysis. MSI Analysis System 1.2 (Promega) was utilized.
RESULTS: The results of MSI analysis method showed MSI-High: 26% (13/50), MSI-Low: 6% (3/50), and Microsatellite Stable: 68% (34/50). The concordance was perfect (0.896, Kappa value) between MSI analysis and IHC methods for the assessment of MMR/MSI status in CRC patients. The discordance was only 4% (2/50). MSI analysis identified all dMMR cases determined by IHC except one case. The obtained frequency of dMMR and pMMR patients was 11.4% (14/123) and 88.6% (109/123) by IHC method, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support the universal practice of evaluating the MMR/MSI status in all newly diagnosed CRC patients. Based on the perfect concordance of two methods, the method of choice is based on the availability of expertise and equipments. IHC is highly appreciable method due to its feasibility and reproducibility.
METHODS: The findings for a few outcome indicators, ranging from the iFOBT uptake to the CRC and polyp detection rates, were generated from the data contributed by 583 public health clinics between 2014 and 2018. The trends in their changes were also evaluated.
RESULTS: The iFOBT uptake constantly increased over the years (p < 0.001), totaling 2.29 % (n = 127,957) as at 2018. Nearly 10 % (n = 11,872) of the individuals screened had a positive test result. Of those who underwent colonoscopy (n = 6,491), 4.04 % (n = 262) and 13.93 % (n = 904) were found to have CRC and polyps, respectively.
CONCLUSION: An uptrend in the CRC screening uptake was witnessed following the introduction of the iFOBT in public health clinics.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: For this individual patient data meta-analysis, sociodemographic and smoking behavior information of 12 414 incident CRC patients (median age at diagnosis: 64.3 years), recruited within 14 prospective cohort studies among previously cancer-free adults, was collected at baseline and harmonized across studies. Vital status and causes of death were collected for a mean follow-up time of 5.1 years following cancer diagnosis. Associations of smoking behavior with overall and CRC-specific survival were evaluated using Cox regression and standard meta-analysis methodology.
RESULTS: A total of 5229 participants died, 3194 from CRC. Cox regression revealed significant associations between former [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12; 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.20] and current smoking (HR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.04-1.60) and poorer overall survival compared with never smoking. Compared with current smoking, smoking cessation was associated with improved overall (HR<10 years = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.69-0.88; HR≥10 years = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.97) and CRC-specific survival (HR≥10 years = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.67-0.85).
CONCLUSION: In this large meta-analysis including primary data of incident CRC patients from 14 prospective cohort studies on the association between smoking and CRC prognosis, former and current smoking were associated with poorer CRC prognosis compared with never smoking. Smoking cessation was associated with improved survival when compared with current smokers. Future studies should further quantify the benefits of nonsmoking, both for cancer prevention and for improving survival among CRC patients, in particular also in terms of treatment response.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using a combination of terms such as "colorectal cancer", "screening" and "low-middle-income countries". Studies of CRC screening interventions/programmes conducted in the general adult population in LMICs as well as policy reviews (of interventions in LMICs) and commentaries on challenges and opportunities of delivering CRC screening in LMICs, published in the English language before February 2020 will be included in this review. The title and abstract screen will be conducted by one reviewer and two reviewers will screen full-texts and extract data from included papers, independently, into a data charting template that will include criteria from an adapted template for intervention description and replication checklist and implementation considerations. The presentation of the scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidance.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns. The results will be used to inform colorectal screening interventions in LMICs. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at relevant conferences.