Scholarlink

Background <p>Current negativity definition in esophageal cancer screening overlooks the risk heterogeneity between individuals with non-dysplastic Lugol’s unstained lesions (ND-LULs) and normal-stained epithelium. We aimed to define the screening negativity by the incidence risk of severe dysplasia and above lesions (SDAs) after chromoendoscopy and ascertain their re-screening interval.</p> Methods <p>We enrolled 815 participants with ND-LULs and 14,123 with normal-stained epithelium from the screening arm of a community-based randomized controlled trial (RCT). The control groups included the RCT’s unscreened arm (<i>n</i> = 16,473), and population controls matched 1:5 by birth year, sex, and village (4075 controls for ND-LULs group, 70,615 controls for normal-stained group). All participants were followed up for up to 10 years. Poisson regression and the cumulative incidence function compared the cumulative incidence of SDA between groups.</p> Results <p>Compared with the RCT control, the cumulative incidence of SDAs was significantly higher in the ND-LULs group over 10&#xa0;years (adjusted <i>IRR</i> = 3.16, 95% <i>CI</i>: 2.02–4.76) but lower in the normal-stained group (adjusted <i>IRR</i> = 0.52, 95% <i>CI</i>: 0.37–0.72). Similar results were achieved using the general population control. The cumulative incidence of SDAs in the ND-LULs group significantly exceeded controls after 2–3&#xa0;years while remaining consistently lower in the normal-stained group over 10&#xa0;years.</p> Conclusions <p>Individuals with normal Lugol staining should be considered the genuinely screening-negative population for esophageal cancer. A 10-year screening interval is recommended for normal-stained individuals, while 2–3&#xa0;years are necessary for ND-LULs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Opening the black box: defining true-negative outcomes in esophageal cancer screening — a population-based study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月7日

查看全文
  • Mengfei Liu,
  • Zeyu Yan,
  • Anxiang Liu,
  • Chuanhai Guo,
  • Haijun Yang,
  • Fenglei Li,
  • Liping Duan,
  • Lin Shen,
  • Zhen Liu,
  • Yaqi Pan,
  • Ying Liu,
  • Fangfang Liu,
  • Wenlei Yang,
  • Hongrui Tian,
  • Zifan Qi,
  • Ren Zhou,
  • Hong Cai,
  • Qi Wu,
  • Zhonghu He,
  • Yang Ke

摘要

Background

Current negativity definition in esophageal cancer screening overlooks the risk heterogeneity between individuals with non-dysplastic Lugol’s unstained lesions (ND-LULs) and normal-stained epithelium. We aimed to define the screening negativity by the incidence risk of severe dysplasia and above lesions (SDAs) after chromoendoscopy and ascertain their re-screening interval.

Methods

We enrolled 815 participants with ND-LULs and 14,123 with normal-stained epithelium from the screening arm of a community-based randomized controlled trial (RCT). The control groups included the RCT’s unscreened arm (n = 16,473), and population controls matched 1:5 by birth year, sex, and village (4075 controls for ND-LULs group, 70,615 controls for normal-stained group). All participants were followed up for up to 10 years. Poisson regression and the cumulative incidence function compared the cumulative incidence of SDA between groups.

Results

Compared with the RCT control, the cumulative incidence of SDAs was significantly higher in the ND-LULs group over 10 years (adjusted IRR = 3.16, 95% CI: 2.02–4.76) but lower in the normal-stained group (adjusted IRR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37–0.72). Similar results were achieved using the general population control. The cumulative incidence of SDAs in the ND-LULs group significantly exceeded controls after 2–3 years while remaining consistently lower in the normal-stained group over 10 years.

Conclusions

Individuals with normal Lugol staining should be considered the genuinely screening-negative population for esophageal cancer. A 10-year screening interval is recommended for normal-stained individuals, while 2–3 years are necessary for ND-LULs.