Literature DB >> 34039685

The Costs and Benefits of Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based On Phenotypic and Genetic Risk: A Health Economic Analysis.

Chloe Thomas1, Olena Mandrik2, Catherine L Saunders3, Deborah Thompson4, Sophie Whyte2, Simon Griffin3, Juliet A Usher-Smith3.   

Abstract

Population-based screening for colorectal cancer is an effective and cost-effective way of reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Many genetic and phenotypic risk factors for colorectal cancer have been identified, leading to development of colorectal cancer risk scores with varying discrimination. However, these are not currently used by population screening programs. We performed an economic analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness, clinical outcomes, and resource impact of using risk-stratification based on phenotypic and genetic risk, taking a UK National Health Service perspective. Biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), starting at an age determined through risk-assessment at age 40, was compared with FIT screening starting at a fixed age for all individuals. Compared with inviting everyone from age 60, using a risk score with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.721 to determine FIT screening start age, produces 418 QALYs, costs £247,000, and results in 218 fewer colorectal cancer cases and 156 fewer colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 people, with similar FIT screening invites. There is 96% probability that risk-stratification is cost-effective, with net monetary benefit (based on £20,000 per QALY threshold) estimated at £8.1 million per 100,000 people. The maximum that could be spent on risk-assessment and still be cost-effective is £114 per person. Lower benefits are produced with lower discrimination risk scores, lower mean screening start age, or higher FIT thresholds. Risk-stratified screening benefits men more than women. Using risk to determine FIT screening start age could improve the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening without using significant additional screening resources. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Colorectal cancer screening is essential for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, but implementation is often limited by resource constraints. This work shows that risk-stratification using genetic and phenotypic risk could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programs, without using substantially more screening resources than are currently available. ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34039685      PMCID: PMC7611464          DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-0620

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)        ISSN: 1940-6215


  35 in total

1.  Uptake trends in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme and the influences of age, sex, and deprivation.

Authors:  Aaron J Quyn; Callum G Fraser; Greig Stanners; Francis A Carey; Claire Carden; Aasma Shaukat; Robert Jc Steele
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  External Validation of Risk Prediction Models Incorporating Common Genetic Variants for Incident Colorectal Cancer Using UK Biobank.

Authors:  Catherine L Saunders; Britt Kilian; Deborah J Thompson; Luke J McGeoch; Simon J Griffin; Antonis C Antoniou; Jon D Emery; Fiona M Walter; Joe Dennis; Xin Yang; Juliet A Usher-Smith
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2020-02-18

3.  Sex, age, and birth cohort effects in colorectal neoplasms: a cohort analysis.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Lutz Altenhofen; Michael Hoffmeister
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Influence of Varying Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds on Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Community-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Kevin Selby; Christopher D Jensen; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Joanne E Schottinger; Wei K Zhao; Jessica Chubak; Ethan Halm; Nirupa R Ghai; Richard Contreras; Celette Skinner; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Fecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening: Colonoscopy findings by different cut-off levels.

Authors:  Hanna Ribbing Wilén; Johannes Blom; Jonas Höijer; Rolf Hultcrantz
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-07-29       Impact factor: 4.029

Review 6.  Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Juliet A Usher-Smith; Fiona M Walter; Jon D Emery; Aung K Win; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2015-10-13

7.  Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Stratified Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Polygenic Risk: Current Status and Future Potential.

Authors:  Steffie K Naber; Suman Kundu; Karen M Kuntz; W David Dotson; Marc S Williams; Ann G Zauber; Ned Calonge; Doris T Zallen; Theodore G Ganiats; Elizabeth M Webber; Katrina A B Goddard; Nora B Henrikson; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; A Cecile J W Janssens; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-10-14

8.  Decomposing socio-economic inequality in colorectal cancer screening uptake in England.

Authors:  Francesca Solmi; Christian Von Wagner; Lindsay C Kobayashi; Rosalind Raine; Jane Wardle; Stephen Morris
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Socioeconomic variation in uptake of colonoscopy following a positive faecal occult blood test result: a retrospective analysis of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  S Morris; G Baio; E Kendall; C von Wagner; J Wardle; W Atkin; S P Halloran; G Handley; R F Logan; A Obichere; S Rainbow; S Smith; J Snowball; R Raine
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Survival of patients with symptom- and screening-detected colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Lina Jansen; Alexis Ulrich; Jenny Chang-Claude; Michael Hoffmeister
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-07-12
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.

Authors:  J M Cairns; S Greenley; O Bamidele; D Weller
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2022-03-20       Impact factor: 2.532

2.  Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Juliet Usher-Smith; Christian von Wagner; Alex Ghanouni
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.302

Review 3.  Cancer Screening Recommendations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Sumit K Shah; Pearl A McElfish
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2022-02-24

4.  Modelling the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on bowel cancer screening outcomes in England: A decision analysis to prepare for future screening disruption.

Authors:  Olena Mandrik; James Chilcott; Chloe Thomas
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 4.637

5.  A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.

Authors:  Rebecca A Dennison; Rachel A Boscott; Rae Thomas; Simon J Griffin; Hannah Harrison; Stephen D John; Sowmiya A Moorthie; Stephen Morris; Sabrina H Rossi; Grant D Stewart; Chloe V Thomas; Juliet A Usher-Smith
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2022-05-08       Impact factor: 3.318

Review 6.  Diabetes precision medicine: plenty of potential, pitfalls and perils but not yet ready for prime time.

Authors:  Simon Griffin
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 10.460

Review 7.  The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Early Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Benjamin Hunter; Sumeet Hindocha; Richard W Lee
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 6.639

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.