BACKGROUND: Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at increased risk for CRC. Current screening recommendations for these individuals are based on expert opinion. The authors investigated optimal screening strategies for individuals with various degrees of family history of CRC based on a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: The MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model was used to estimate costs and effects of CRC screening strategies, varying by the age at which screening was started and stopped and by screening interval. The authors defined 4 risk groups, characterized by the number of affected first-degree relatives and their age at CRC diagnosis. For all risk groups, the optimal screening strategy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $50,000 per life-year gained. RESULTS: The optimal screening strategy for individuals with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed after age 50 years was 6 colonoscopies every 5 years starting at age 50 years, compared with 4 colonoscopies every 7 years starting at age 50 years for average risk individuals. The optimal strategy had 10 colonoscopies every 4 years for individuals with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed before age 50 years, 13 colonoscopies every 3 years for individuals with 2 or more first-degree relatives diagnosed after age 50 years, and 15 colonoscopies every 3 years for individuals with 2 or more first-degree relatives of whom at least 1 was diagnosed before age 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal screening strategy varies considerably with the number of affected first-degree relatives and their age of diagnosis. Shorter screening intervals than the currently recommended 5 years may be appropriate for the highest risk individuals.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at increased risk for CRC. Current screening recommendations for these individuals are based on expert opinion. The authors investigated optimal screening strategies for individuals with various degrees of family history of CRC based on a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: The MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model was used to estimate costs and effects of CRC screening strategies, varying by the age at which screening was started and stopped and by screening interval. The authors defined 4 risk groups, characterized by the number of affected first-degree relatives and their age at CRC diagnosis. For all risk groups, the optimal screening strategy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $50,000 per life-year gained. RESULTS: The optimal screening strategy for individuals with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed after age 50 years was 6 colonoscopies every 5 years starting at age 50 years, compared with 4 colonoscopies every 7 years starting at age 50 years for average risk individuals. The optimal strategy had 10 colonoscopies every 4 years for individuals with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed before age 50 years, 13 colonoscopies every 3 years for individuals with 2 or more first-degree relatives diagnosed after age 50 years, and 15 colonoscopies every 3 years for individuals with 2 or more first-degree relatives of whom at least 1 was diagnosed before age 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal screening strategy varies considerably with the number of affected first-degree relatives and their age of diagnosis. Shorter screening intervals than the currently recommended 5 years may be appropriate for the highest risk individuals.
Authors: Laura Baglietto; Mark A Jenkins; Gianluca Severi; Graham G Giles; D Timothy Bishop; Peter Boyle; John L Hopper Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Janneke A Wilschut; J Dik F Habbema; Scott D Ramsey; Rob Boer; Caspar W N Looman; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'Brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J C Clark; Y Collan; T J Eide; J Estève; S Ewen; N M Gibbs; O M Jensen; E Koskela; R MacLennan; J G Simpson Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1985-08-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Rob Boer; Ann Zauber; J Dik F Habbema Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; Carolyn M Rutter; Steffie K Naber; V Paul Doria-Rose; Chester Pabiniak; Colden Johanson; Sara E Fischer; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stacy N Davis; Shannon M Christy; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Rania Abdulla; Steven K Sutton; Alyssa R Schmidt; Susan T Vadaparampil; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Vani N Simmons; Chukwudi B Ufondu; Chitra Ravindra; Ida Schultz; Richard G Roetzheim; David Shibata; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anna N Wilkinson; David Lieberman; Grigorios I Leontiadis; Frances Tse; Alan N Barkun; Ahmed Abou-Setta; John K Marshall; Jewel Samadder; Harminder Singh; Jennifer J Telford; Jill Tinmouth; Desmond Leddin Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Samir Gupta; Balambal Bharti; Dennis J Ahnen; Daniel D Buchanan; Iona C Cheng; Michelle Cotterchio; Jane C Figueiredo; Steven J Gallinger; Robert W Haile; Mark A Jenkins; Noralane M Lindor; Finlay A Macrae; Loïc Le Marchand; Polly A Newcomb; Stephen N Thibodeau; Aung Ko Win; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Frank van Hees; Sameer D Saini; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sandeep Vijan; Reinier G S Meester; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 22.682