Literature DB >> 27305518

Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Amy B Knudsen1, Ann G Zauber2, Carolyn M Rutter3, Steffie K Naber4, V Paul Doria-Rose5, Chester Pabiniak6, Colden Johanson7, Sara E Fischer2, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar4, Karen M Kuntz8.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2008 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: To inform the USPSTF by modeling the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies; estimating the optimal ages to begin and end screening; and identifying a set of model-recommendable strategies that provide similar life-years gained (LYG) and a comparable balance between LYG and screening burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Comparative modeling with 3 microsimulation models of a hypothetical cohort of previously unscreened US 40-year-olds with no prior CRC diagnosis. EXPOSURES: Screening with sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without stool testing, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and ending at age 75, 80, or 85 years. Screening intervals varied by modality. Full adherence for all strategies was assumed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years gained compared with no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies required (burden), lifetime number of colonoscopy complications (harms), and ratios of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios) per 1000 40-year-olds.
RESULTS: The screening strategies provided LYG in the range of 152 to 313 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden per 1000 persons ranged from fewer than 900 (FIT every 3 years from ages 55-75 years) to more than 7500 (colonoscopy screening every 5 years from ages 45-85 years). Harm from screening was at most 23 complications per 1000 persons screened. Strategies with screening beginning at age 50 years generally provided more LYG as well as more additional LYG per additional colonoscopy than strategies with screening beginning at age 55 years. There were limited empirical data to support a start age of 45 years. For persons adequately screened up to age 75 years, additional screening yielded small increases in LYG relative to the increase in colonoscopy burden. With screening from ages 50 to 75 years, 4 strategies yielded a comparable balance of screening burden and similar LYG (median LYG per 1000 across the models): colonoscopy every 10 years (270 LYG); sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT (256 LYG); CTC every 5 years (248 LYG); and annual FIT (244 LYG). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study of a previously unscreened population undergoing CRC screening that assumed 100% adherence, the strategies of colonoscopy every 10 years, annual FIT, sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT, and CTC every 5 years performed from ages 50 through 75 years provided similar LYG and a comparable balance of benefit and screening burden.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27305518      PMCID: PMC5493310          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.6828

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  62 in total

1.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Resa M Jones; Steven H Woolf; Tina D Cunningham; Robert E Johnson; Alex H Krist; Stephen F Rothemich; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-03-28       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Kathleen A Cronin; Nancy Breen; William R Waldron; Anita H Ambs; Marion R Nadel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew J Taylor; David H Kim; Mark Reichelderfer; Deepak V Gopal; Patrick R Pfau
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-09-18       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Kenneth P Batts; Carol A Burke; Randall W Burt; John R Goldblum; José G Guillem; Charles J Kahi; Matthew F Kalady; Michael J O'Brien; Robert D Odze; Shuji Ogino; Susan Parry; Dale C Snover; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul E Wise; Joanne Young; James Church
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  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

7.  Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Aasma Shaukat; Steven J Mongin; Mindy S Geisser; Frank A Lederle; John H Bond; Jack S Mandel; Timothy R Church
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; J Dik F Habbema; Reinier G Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening.

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  149 in total

1.  Screening initiation with FIT or colonoscopy: Post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, randomized trial.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Chul Ahn; Sandi L Pruitt; Amy E Hughes; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Noel O Santini; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Amit G Singal; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 2.  Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.

Authors:  Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 3.  Data-Powered Participatory Decision Making: Leveraging Systems Thinking and Simulation to Guide Selection and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions.

Authors:  Stephanie B Wheeler; Jennifer Leeman; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Florence K L Tangka; Melinda M Davis; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2018 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.360

4.  Outreach and Inreach Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latinos at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2015-2018.

Authors:  Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Marielena Rojas; Silvia Mercado; Adriana M Bearse; Jasmine Camacho; Manuel Song Lopez; Fatima Muñoz; Shawne O'Connell; Lin Liu; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 5.  Racial Disparity in Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Hassan Ashktorab; Sonia S Kupfer; Hassan Brim; John M Carethers
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  What is the optimal colorectal cancer screening program for an average-risk population?

Authors:  Masau Sekiguchi; Takahisa Matsuda; Yutaka Saito
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-03-16

7.  Overcoming misled design and interpretation of randomised trials.

Authors:  Tobias Niedermaier; Korbinian Weigl; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  To Screen or Not to Screen Adults 45-49 Years of Age: That is the Question.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Jewel N Samadder
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 10.864

9. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.275

10.  High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Amy B Knudsen; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.