BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been successful in decreasing the incidence and mortality from CRC. Although new screening tests have become available, their relative impact on CRC outcomes remains unexplored. This study compares the outcomes of various screening strategies on CRC outcomes. METHODS: A Markov model representing the natural history of CRC was built and validated against empiric data from screening trials as well as the Microstimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model. Thirteen screening strategies based on colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, as well as fecal immunochemical, occult blood, and stool DNA testing were compared with no screening. A simulated sample of the US general population ages 50 to 75 years with an average risk of CRC was followed for up to 35 years or until death. Effectiveness was measured by discounted life years gained and the number of CRCs prevented. Discounted costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A discount rate of 3% was used in calculations. The study took a societal perspective. RESULTS: Colonoscopy emerged as the most effective screening strategy with the highest life years gained (0.022 life years) and CRCs prevented (n = 1068) and the lowest total costs ($2861). These values were 0.012 life years gained, 574 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $3164, respectively, for FOBT; and 0.011 life years gained, 647 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $4296, respectively, for DNA testing. Improved sensitivity or specificity of a screening test for CRC detection was not sufficient to close the outcomes gap compared with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in CRC-detection performance is not sufficient to improve screening outcomes. Special attention must be directed to detecting precancerous adenomas. Cancer 2017;123:1516-1527.
BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been successful in decreasing the incidence and mortality from CRC. Although new screening tests have become available, their relative impact on CRC outcomes remains unexplored. This study compares the outcomes of various screening strategies on CRC outcomes. METHODS: A Markov model representing the natural history of CRC was built and validated against empiric data from screening trials as well as the Microstimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model. Thirteen screening strategies based on colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, as well as fecal immunochemical, occult blood, and stool DNA testing were compared with no screening. A simulated sample of the US general population ages 50 to 75 years with an average risk of CRC was followed for up to 35 years or until death. Effectiveness was measured by discounted life years gained and the number of CRCs prevented. Discounted costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A discount rate of 3% was used in calculations. The study took a societal perspective. RESULTS: Colonoscopy emerged as the most effective screening strategy with the highest life years gained (0.022 life years) and CRCs prevented (n = 1068) and the lowest total costs ($2861). These values were 0.012 life years gained, 574 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $3164, respectively, for FOBT; and 0.011 life years gained, 647 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $4296, respectively, for DNA testing. Improved sensitivity or specificity of a screening test for CRC detection was not sufficient to close the outcomes gap compared with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in CRC-detection performance is not sufficient to improve screening outcomes. Special attention must be directed to detecting precancerous adenomas. Cancer 2017;123:1516-1527.
Authors: Øyvind Holme; Magnus Løberg; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Miguel A Hernán; Eline Aas; Tor J Eide; Eva Skovlund; Jørn Schneede; Kjell Magne Tveit; Geir Hoff Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Jeroen C van Rijn; Johannes B Reitsma; Jaap Stoker; Patrick M Bossuyt; Sander J van Deventer; Evelien Dekker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; David R Wagner; Ching Y Lin; Gregory N Larkin; James D Rogge; David F Ransohoff Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-12-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: James E Allison; Lori C Sakoda; Theodore R Levin; Jo P Tucker; Irene S Tekawa; Thomas Cuff; Mary Pat Pauly; Lyle Shlager; Albert M Palitz; Wei K Zhao; J Sanford Schwartz; David F Ransohoff; Joseph V Selby Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Sheila Weinmann; Kenneth Adams; Aruna Kamineni; Diana S M Buist; Arlene S Ash; Carolyn M Rutter; V Paul Doria-Rose; Douglas A Corley; Robert T Greenlee; Jessica Chubak; Andrew Williams; Aimee R Kroll-Desrosiers; Eric Johnson; Joseph Webster; Kathryn Richert-Boe; Theodore R Levin; Robert H Fletcher; Noel S Weiss Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: George J Chang; Chung-Yuan Hu; Cathy Eng; John M Skibber; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sonya S Brady; Tamara G Bavendam; Amanda Berry; Cynthia S Fok; Sheila Gahagan; Patricia S Goode; Cecilia T Hardacker; Jeni Hebert-Beirne; Cora E Lewis; Jessica B Lewis; Lisa Kane Low; Jerry L Lowder; Mary H Palmer; Jean F Wyman; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Darren R Brenner; Emily Heer; R Liam Sutherland; Yibing Ruan; Jill Tinmouth; Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-07-03
Authors: Feyisope R Eweje; Suzie Byun; Rajat Chandra; Fengling Hu; Ihab Kamel; Paul Zhang; Zhicheng Jiao; Harrison X Bai Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Laura W Musselwhite; Thomas S Redding; Kellie J Sims; Meghan C O'Leary; Elizabeth R Hauser; Terry Hyslop; Ziad F Gellad; Brian A Sullivan; David Lieberman; Dawn Provenzale Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 4.430