B Joseph Elmunzer1, Amit G Singal2, Jeremy B Sussman3, Amar R Deshpande4, Daniel A Sussman4, Marisa L Conte5, Ben A Dwamena6, Mary A M Rogers7, Philip S Schoenfeld8, John M Inadomi9, Sameer D Saini8, Akbar K Waljee8. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases and the Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 3. Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 5. University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness data pertaining to competing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests do not exist but are necessary to guide clinical decision making and policy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparative synthesis of clinical outcomes studies evaluating the effects of competing tests on CRC-related mortality. DESIGN: Traditional and network meta-analyses. Two reviewers identified studies evaluating the effect of guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), or colonoscopy on CRC-related mortality. INTERVENTIONS: gFOBT, FS, colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Traditional meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of each modality on CRC mortality. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of screening modalities. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Traditional meta-analysis revealed that, compared with no intervention, colonoscopy reduced CRC-related mortality by 57% (relative risk [RR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.58), whereas FS reduced CRC-related mortality by 40% (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), and gFOBT reduced CRC-related mortality by 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88). NMA demonstrated nonsignificant trends favoring colonoscopy over FS (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.11) and FS over gFOBT (RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.09) for reducing CRC-related deaths. NMA-based simulations, however, revealed that colonoscopy has a 94% probability of being the most effective test for reducing CRC mortality and a 99% probability of being most effective when the analysis is restricted to screening studies. LIMITATIONS: Randomized trials and observational studies were combined within the same analysis. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes studies demonstrate that gFOBT, FS, and colonoscopy are all effective in reducing CRC-related mortality. Network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective test.
BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness data pertaining to competing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests do not exist but are necessary to guide clinical decision making and policy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparative synthesis of clinical outcomes studies evaluating the effects of competing tests on CRC-related mortality. DESIGN: Traditional and network meta-analyses. Two reviewers identified studies evaluating the effect of guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), or colonoscopy on CRC-related mortality. INTERVENTIONS:gFOBT, FS, colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Traditional meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of each modality on CRC mortality. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of screening modalities. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Traditional meta-analysis revealed that, compared with no intervention, colonoscopy reduced CRC-related mortality by 57% (relative risk [RR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.58), whereas FS reduced CRC-related mortality by 40% (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), and gFOBT reduced CRC-related mortality by 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88). NMA demonstrated nonsignificant trends favoring colonoscopy over FS (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.11) and FS over gFOBT (RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.09) for reducing CRC-related deaths. NMA-based simulations, however, revealed that colonoscopy has a 94% probability of being the most effective test for reducing CRC mortality and a 99% probability of being most effective when the analysis is restricted to screening studies. LIMITATIONS: Randomized trials and observational studies were combined within the same analysis. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes studies demonstrate that gFOBT, FS, and colonoscopy are all effective in reducing CRC-related mortality. Network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective test.
Authors: Heiko Pohl; Amitabh Srivastava; Steve P Bensen; Peter Anderson; Richard I Rothstein; Stuart R Gordon; L Campbell Levy; Arifa Toor; Todd A Mackenzie; Thomas Rosch; Douglas J Robertson Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Harminder Singh; Zoann Nugent; Alain A Demers; Erich V Kliewer; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Charles N Bernstein Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-06-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jean A Shapiro; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor D Thompson; Marion R Nadel; Laura C Seeff; Arica White Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: John M Inadomi; Sandeep Vijan; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Jennifer P Thomas; Yunghui V Lin; Roxana Muñoz; Chim Lau; Ma Somsouk; Najwa El-Nachef; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-04-09
Authors: Reiko Nishihara; Kana Wu; Paul Lochhead; Teppei Morikawa; Xiaoyun Liao; Zhi Rong Qian; Kentaro Inamura; Sun A Kim; Aya Kuchiba; Mai Yamauchi; Yu Imamura; Walter C Willett; Bernard A Rosner; Charles S Fuchs; Edward Giovannucci; Shuji Ogino; Andrew T Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa Magrath; Edward Yang; Chul Ahn; Christian A Mayorga; Purva Gopal; Caitlin C Murphy; Samir Gupta; Deepak Agrawal; Ethan A Halm; Eric K Borton; Celette Sugg Skinner; Amit G Singal Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jason Martin; Ethan A Halm; Jasmin A Tiro; Zahra Merchant; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Chul Ahn; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Amit G Singal Journal: Am J Med Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Matthew A Kluge; J Lucas Williams; Connie K Wu; Brian C Jacobson; Paul C Schroy; David A Lieberman; Audrey H Calderwood Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Amit G Singal; Samir Gupta; Jasmin A Tiro; Celette Sugg Skinner; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Deepak Agrawal; Christian A Mayorga; Chul Ahn; Adam C Loewen; Noel O Santini; Ethan A Halm Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amit G Singal; Douglas A Corley; Aruna Kamineni; Michael Garcia; Yingye Zheng; Paul V Doria-Rose; Virginia P Quinn; Christopher D Jensen; Jessica Chubak; Jasmin Tiro; Chyke A Doubeni; Nirupa R Ghai; Celette Sugg Skinner; Karen Wernli; Ethan A Halm Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Amit G Singal; Anna S Lok; Ziding Feng; Fasiha Kanwal; Neehar D Parikh Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 11.382