Literature DB >> 25332032

Optimising the expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

Dayna R Cenin1, D James B St John2, Melissa J N Ledger3, Terry Slevin4, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of various expansion scenarios of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) on the number of bowel cancer deaths prevented; and to investigate the impact of the expansion scenarios on colonoscopy demand.
DESIGN: MISCAN-Colon, a well established, validated computer simulation model for bowel cancer screening, was adjusted to reflect the Australian situation. In July 2013, we simulated the effects of screening over a 50-year period, starting in 2006. The model parameters included rates of participation in screening and follow-up, rates of identification of cancerous and precancerous lesions, bowel cancer incidence, mortality and the outcomes of the NBCSP. Five implementation scenarios, based on biennial screening using an immunochemical faecal occult blood test, were developed and modelled. A sensitivity analysis that increased screening participation to 60% was also conducted. PARTICIPANTS: Australian residents aged 50 to 74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of the impact of five implementation scenarios on the number of bowel cancer deaths prevented and demand for colonoscopy.
RESULTS: MISCAN-Colon calculated that in its current state, the NBCSP should prevent 35 169 bowel cancer deaths in the coming 40 years. Accelerating the expansion of the program to achieve biennial screening by 2020 would prevent more than 70 000 deaths. If complete implementation of biennial screening results in a corresponding increase in participation to 60%, the number of deaths prevented will increase across all scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly support the need for rapid implementation of the NBCSP. Compared with the current situation, achieving biennial screening by 2020 could result in 100% more bowel cancer deaths (about 35 000) being prevented in the coming 40 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25332032      PMCID: PMC4412258          DOI: 10.5694/mja13.00112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  15 in total

1.  How much can current interventions reduce colorectal cancer mortality in the U.S.? Mortality projections for scenarios of risk-factor modification, screening, and treatment.

Authors:  Iris Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Deborah Schrag; Rob Boer; Sidney J Winawer; J Dik F Habbema; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Preliminary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: demonstrating the potential value of comprehensive real world data.

Authors:  B Tran; C L Keating; S S Ananda; S Kosmider; I Jones; M Croxford; K M Field; R C Carter; P Gibbs
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.048

3.  Beliefs about bowel cancer among the target group for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia.

Authors:  Geoffrey Jalleh; Robert J Donovan; Chad Lin; Terry Slevin; Cassandra Clayforth; Iain S Pratt; Melissa Ledger
Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.939

4.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test.

Authors:  O Kronborg; C Fenger; J Olsen; O D Jørgensen; O Søndergaard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult.

Authors:  B Towler; L Irwig; P Glasziou; J Kewenter; D Weller; C Silagy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-29

7.  High compliance rates observed for follow up colonoscopy post polypectomy are achievable outside of clinical trials: efficacy of polypectomy is not reduced by low compliance for follow up.

Authors:  P Colquhoun; H-C Chen; Jong Ik Kim; J Efron; E G Weiss; J J Nogueras; A M Vernava; S D Wexner
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.788

8.  Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study.

Authors:  J S Mandel; J H Bond; T R Church; D C Snover; G M Bradley; L M Schuman; F Ederer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  National Polyp Study data: evidence for regression of adenomas.

Authors:  Franka Loeve; Rob Boer; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein Van Ballegooijen; Gerrit J Van Oortmarssen; Sidney J Winawer; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2004-09-10       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England.

Authors:  D Weller; D Coleman; R Robertson; P Butler; J Melia; C Campbell; R Parker; J Patnick; S Moss
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  The value of models in informing resource allocation in colorectal cancer screening: the case of The Netherlands.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; Ann G Zauber; Harriët van Veldhuizen; Marie-Louise A Heijnen; Corine Penning; Harry J de Koning; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; Theodore R Levin; David Lieberman; Douglas J Robertson
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.

Authors:  Elisabeth F P Peterse; Caroline B Osoro; Marc Bardou; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 8.171

4.  Long-Term Prediction of the Demand of Colonoscopies Generated by a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Mercè Comas; Joan Mendivil; Montserrat Andreu; Cristina Hernández; Xavier Castells
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Optimizing Patient Risk Stratification for Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer: The Role for Linked Data.

Authors:  David B Preen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Hooi C Ee; Cameron Platell; Dayna R Cenin; Lakkhina Troeung; Max Bulsara; Peter O'Leary
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2017-09-08

6.  Patients' views on involving general practice in bowel cancer screening: a South Australian focus group study.

Authors:  Lynsey Brown; Cecilia Moretti; Leigh Roeger; Richard Reed
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Improving Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program outcomes through increased participation and cost-effective investment.

Authors:  Joachim Worthington; Jie-Bin Lew; Eleonora Feletto; Carol A Holden; Daniel L Worthley; Caroline Miller; Karen Canfell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic hysterectomy in first-degree female relatives with Lynch syndrome of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the United States: a microsimulation study.

Authors:  Maaike Alblas; Elisabeth F P Peterse; Mengmeng Du; Ann G Zauber; Ewout W Steyerberg; Nikki van Leeuwen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-09-12       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Quantifying the duration of the preclinical detectable phase in cancer screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sandra M E Geurts; Anne M W M Aarts; André L M Verbeek; Tony H H Chen; Mireille J M Broeders; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Epidemiol Health       Date:  2022-01-03

10.  Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.

Authors:  Heather Smith; Peyman Varshoei; Robin Boushey; Craig Kuziemsky
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.