Literature DB >> 32450362

Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History.

Dayna R Cenin1, Jill Tinmouth2, Steffie K Naber3, Catherine Dubé4, Bronwen R McCurdy5, Lawrence Paszat6, Linda Rabeneck2, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Routine screening for colorectal cancer typically is recommended until age 74 years. Although it has been proposed that a screening stop age could be determined based on sex and comorbidity, less is known about the impact of screening history. We investigated the effects of screening history on the selection of an optimal age to stop screening.
METHODS: We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model to estimate the harms and benefits of screening with biennial fecal immunochemical tests by sex, comorbidity status, and screening history. The optimal screening stop age was determined based on the incremental number needed for 1 additional life-year per 1000 screened individuals compared with the threshold provided by stopping screening at 76 years in the average-health population with a perfect screening history (attended all required screening, diagnostic, and follow-up tests) to biennial fecal immunochemical testing from age 50 years.
RESULTS: For persons age 76 years, 157 women and 108 men with a perfect screening history would need to be screened to gain 1 life-year per 1000 screened individuals. Previously unscreened women with no comorbid conditions and no history of screening could undergo an initial screening through 90 years, whereas unscreened men could undergo initial screening through 88 years, before this balance is reached. As screening adherence improved or as comorbidities increased, the optimal age to stop screening decreased to a point that, regardless of sex, individuals with severe comorbidities and a perfect screening history should stop screening at age 66 years or younger.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the harm-benefit balance, the optimal stop age for colorectal cancer screening ranges from 66 years for unhealthy individuals with a perfect screening history to 90 years for healthy individuals without prior screening. These findings can be used to assist patients and clinicians in making decisions about screening participation.
Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colon Cancer; Detection; Patient Outcomes; Precision Medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32450362      PMCID: PMC7982961          DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  23 in total

1.  The MISCAN-COLON simulation model for the evaluation of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  F Loeve; R Boer; G J van Oortmarssen; M van Ballegooijen; J D Habbema
Journal:  Comput Biomed Res       Date:  1999-02

Review 2.  Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes.

Authors:  Eline H Schreuders; Arlinda Ruco; Linda Rabeneck; Robert E Schoen; Joseph J Y Sung; Graeme P Young; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Personalizing age of cancer screening cessation based on comorbid conditions: model estimates of harms and benefits.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Roman Gulati; Angela B Mariotto; Clyde B Schechter; Tiago M de Carvalho; Amy B Knudsen; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Chester Pabiniak; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Carolyn M Rutter; Karen M Kuntz; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Effect of Temperature and Time on Fecal Hemoglobin Stability in 5 Fecal Immunochemical Test Methods and One Guaiac Method.

Authors:  Peter Catomeris; Nancy N Baxter; Sheila C Boss; Lawrence F Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Edward Randell; Mardie L Serenity; Rinku Sutradhar; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 5.534

5.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review.

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

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.  Prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in white and black patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in a safety-net hospital.

Authors:  Paul C Schroy; Alison Coe; Clara A Chen; Michael J O'Brien; Timothy C Heeren
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice.

Authors:  Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Robert J Hilsden; Refik Saskin; Des Leddin; Eva Grunfeld; Elaine Wai; Meredith Goldwasser; Rinku Sutradhar; Therese A Stukel
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Cumulative impact of common genetic variants and other risk factors on colorectal cancer risk in 42,103 individuals.

Authors:  Malcolm G Dunlop; Albert Tenesa; Susan M Farrington; Stephane Ballereau; David H Brewster; Thibaud Koessler; Paul Pharoah; Clemens Schafmayer; Jochen Hampe; Henry Völzke; Jenny Chang-Claude; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner; Susanna von Holst; Simone Picelli; Annika Lindblom; Mark A Jenkins; John L Hopper; Graham Casey; David Duggan; Polly A Newcomb; Anna Abulí; Xavier Bessa; Clara Ruiz-Ponte; Sergi Castellví-Bel; Iina Niittymäki; Sari Tuupanen; Auli Karhu; Lauri Aaltonen; Brent Zanke; Tom Hudson; Steven Gallinger; Ella Barclay; Lynn Martin; Maggie Gorman; Luis Carvajal-Carmona; Axel Walther; David Kerr; Steven Lubbe; Peter Broderick; Ian Chandler; Alan Pittman; Steven Penegar; Harry Campbell; Ian Tomlinson; Richard S Houlston
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  2 in total

1.  Incident Cancer Risk and Signatures Among Older MUTYH Carriers: Analysis of Population-Based and Genomic Cohorts.

Authors:  Jonathan M Downie; Moeen Riaz; Jing Xie; Minyi Lee; Andrew T Chan; Peter Gibbs; Suzanne G Orchard; Suzanne E Mahady; Robert P Sebra; Anne M Murray; Finlay Macrae; Eric Schadt; Robyn L Woods; John J McNeil; Paul Lacaze; Manish Gala
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2022-08-01

Review 2.  Risk-stratified strategies in population screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Reinier Meester; Lucie de Jonge; Andrea Buron; Ulrike Haug; Carlo Senore
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 7.316

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.