Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy for colorectal cancer

Cost-effectiveness analysis of single colonoscopy versus single fecal test for colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Regular endoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is ideal for screening colorectal cancer. However, only a limited number of individuals undergo regular screening. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a single colonoscopy with a single FIT performed for colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was constructed based on real-world observational data collected from three institutions between 2019 and 2022 that compared colonoscopy-based screening with FIT-based screening. The total costs of diagnosis and treatment of the detected lesions using the two strategies were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per life year gained (LYG) of the colonoscopy-based strategy was calculated.

RESULTS

Data from 11 407 patients undergoing colonoscopies and 59 176 patients undergoing FITs were used to establish a model. In the base case analysis of screening strategies, colonoscopy was more cost-effective than FIT (ICER 415 193 yen/LYG). The ICER of the colonoscopy-based strategy among 60- to 69-year-old patients was lowest at 394 200 yen/LYG, whereas that in 20- to 29-year-old patients was highest. Monte Carlo simulations showed that the colonoscopy-based strategy was more cost-effective than the FIT-based strategy (net monetary benefit [NMB]: 5 695 957 yen vs 5 348 253 yen). When the adenoma detection rate in the colonoscopy was over 30% or the positive FIT rate was lower than 8.6% in the FIT-based strategy, the NMB of the colonoscopy-based strategy exceeded that of the FIT-based strategy.

CONCLUSION

In the microsimulation model, colonoscopy is recommended as a one-time screening procedure in patients aged >60 years with >30% ADR or <8.6% positive FIT rate.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation.

METHODS

Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation.

CONCLUSIONS

CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies Using Active Learning and Monte Carlo Simulation

INTRODUCTION

Detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the early stages through available screening tests increases the patient's survival chances. Multimodal screening policies can benefit patients by providing more diverse screening options and balancing the risks and benefits of screening tests. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of a wide variety of multimodal CRC screening policies.

METHODS

We developed a Monte Carlo simulation framework to model CRC dynamics. We proposed an innovative calibration process using machine learning models to estimate age- and size-specific adenomatous polyps' progression and regression rates. The proposed approach significantly expedites the model parameter space search.

RESULTS

Two multimodal proposed policies (i.e., 1] colonoscopy at 50 y and fecal occult blood test annually between 60 and 75 y and 2] colonoscopy at 50 and 60 y and fecal immunochemical test annually between 70 and 75 y) are identified as efficient frontier policies. Both policies are cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the sensitivity of results to a change in screening test costs as well as adherence behavior. The sensitivity analysis results suggest that the proposed policies are mostly robust to the considered changes in screening test costs, as there is a significant overlap between the efficient frontier policies of the baseline and the sensitivity analysis cases. However, the efficient frontier policies were more sensitive to changes in adherence behavior.

CONCLUSION

Generally, combining stool-based tests with visual tests will benefit patients with higher life expectancy and a lower expected cost compared with unimodal screening policies. Colonoscopy at younger ages (when the colonoscopy complication risk is lower) and stool-based tests at older ages are shown to be more effective.

HIGHLIGHTS

We propose a detailed Markov model to capture the colorectal cancer (CRC) dynamics. The proposed Markov model presents the detailed dynamics of adenomas progression to CRC.We use more than 44,000 colonoscopy reports and available data in the literature to calibrate the proposed Markov model using an innovative approach that leverages machine learning models to expedite the calibration process.We investigate the cost-effectiveness of a wide variety of multimodal CRC screening policies and compare their performances with the current in-practice policies.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Is there a place for sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening? A systematic review and critical appraisal of cost-effectiveness models

INTRODUCTION

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose. Sigmoidoscopy is an alternative screening measure with a strong evidence base. Due to its distinct characteristics, it might be preferred by subgroups. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening compared to other screening methods and to identify influencing parameters.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for the time frame 01/2010-01/2023 was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, NHS EED, as well as the Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Full economic analyses examining sigmoidoscopy as a screening measure for the general population at average risk for CRC were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. All included studies were critically assessed based on a questionnaire for modelling studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies are included in the review. Compared to no screening, sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective screening strategy for CRC. When modelled as a single measure strategy, sigmoidoscopy is mostly dominated by colonoscopy or modern stool tests. When combined with annual stool testing, sigmoidoscopy in 5-year intervals is more effective and less costly than the respective strategies alone. The results of the studies are influenced by varying assumptions on adherence, costs, and test characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The combination of sigmoidoscopy and stool testing represents a cost-effective screening strategy that has not received much attention in current guidelines. Further research is needed that goes beyond a narrow focus on screening technology and models different, preference-based participation behavior in subgroups.

Population Genomic Screening for Three Common Hereditary Conditions : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of screening the U.S. population for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 genomic conditions is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

DESIGN

Decision analytic Markov model.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature.

TARGET POPULATION

Separate age-based cohorts (ages 20 to 60 years at time of screening) of racially and ethnically representative U.S. adults.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care payer.

INTERVENTION

Population genomic screening using clinical sequencing with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes, cascade testing of first-degree relatives, and recommended preventive interventions for identified probands.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incident breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cases; incident cardiovascular events; quality-adjusted survival; and costs.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Screening 100 000 unselected 30-year-olds resulted in 101 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 77 to 127) fewer overall cancer cases and 15 (95% UI, 4 to 28) fewer cardiovascular events and an increase of 495 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% UI, 401 to 757) at an incremental cost of $33.9 million (95% UI, $27.0 million to $41.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68 600 per QALY gained (95% UI, $41 800 to $88 900).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old cohorts was cost-effective in 99%, 88%, and 19% of probabilistic simulations, respectively, at a $100 000-per-QALY threshold. The test costs at which screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-olds reached the $100 000-per-QALY threshold were $413, $290, and $166, respectively. Variant prevalence and adherence to preventive interventions were also highly influential parameters.

LIMITATIONS

Population averages for model inputs, which were derived predominantly from European populations, vary across ancestries and health care environments.

CONCLUSION

Population genomic screening with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes associated with 3 CDC Tier 1 conditions is likely to be cost-effective in U.S. adults younger than 40 years if the testing cost is relatively low and probands have access to preventive interventions.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Human Genome Research Institute.

Opportunistic colonoscopy in healthy individuals: A non-trivial risk of adenoma

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Opportunistic colonoscopy may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of CRC by detecting its precursors.

AIM

To determine the risk of colorectal adenomas in a population who underwent opportunistic colonoscopy, and demonstrate the need for opportunistic colonoscopy.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to patients who underwent colonoscopy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University from December 2021 to January 2022. The patients were divided into two groups, the opportunistic colonoscopy group who underwent a health examination including colonoscopy without intestinal symptoms due to other diseases, and the non-opportunistic group. The risk of adenomas and influence factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent opportunistic colonoscopy had a similar risk to the non-opportunistic group, in terms of overall polyps (40.8% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.919), adenomas (25.8% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.581), advanced adenomas (8.7% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.902) and CRC (0.6% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.473). Patients with colorectal polyps and adenomas in the opportunistic colonoscopy group were younger (P = 0.004). There was no difference in the detection rate of polyps between patients who underwent colonoscopy as part of a health examination and those who underwent colonoscopy for other reasons. In patients with intestinal symptoms, abnormal intestinal motility and changes in stool characteristics were frequent (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

The risk of overall colonic polyps, advanced adenomas in healthy people undergoing opportunistic colonoscopy no less than that in the patients with intestinal symptoms, positive FOBT, abnormal tumor markers, and who accepted re-colonoscopy after polypectomy. Our study indicates that more attention should be paid to the population without intestinal symptoms, especially smokers and those older than 40 years.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death worldwide and the use of CRC screening tests can reduce the incidence and mortality of the disease by early detection. This study aims to review cost-effectiveness strategies in different ages and countries, systematically.

METHODS

We searched ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed and Embase for related studies between 2010 and 2020. Articles that reported costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Year or Life Year Gain and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios to compare the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in the average-risk population were included in our study.

RESULTS

The search strategies identified 426 records and finally 48 articles were included in the systematic review based on included and excluded criteria. We identified seven strategies for CRC screening. Most of the strategies were performed in aged 50-75. These studies were reported by cost per Quality-Adjusted life year (QALY)/Life Year Gain (LYG) based on methods and perspectives and the ICER of comparison of two-by-two strategies.

CONCLUSION

Most of the CRC screening strategies were cost-effective, but there was big heterogeneity between the cost-effectiveness analysis of CRC screening strategies because of different screening methods, perspectives and screening populations. So, it is important to consider this heterogeneity to compare the economic evaluation studies in this field.

Do Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Measures Reflect Cost-Effectiveness Evidence?

OBJECTIVES

Despite its importance of quality measures used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the underlying cost-effectiveness evidence has not been examined. This study aimed to analyze cost-effectiveness evidence associated with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures.

METHODS

After classifying 23 quality measures with the Donabedian's structure-process-outcome quality of care model, we identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) relevant to these measures from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry based on the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, time horizon, and setting) framework. We then summarized available incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the cost-effectiveness of the quality measures.

RESULTS

The 23 quality measures were categorized into 14 process, 7 outcome, and 2 structure measures. Cost-effectiveness evidence was only available for 8 of 14 process measures. Two measures (Tobacco Screening and Hemoglobin bA1c Control) were cost-saving and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) improving, and 5 (Depression Screening, Influenza Immunization, Colon Cancer Screening, Breast Cancer Screening, and Statin Therapy) were highly cost-effective (median ICER ≤ $50 000/QALY). The remaining measure (Fall Screening) had a median ICER of $120 000/QALY. No CEAs were available for 15 measures: 10 defined by subjective patient ratings and 5 employed outcome measures without specifying an intervention or process.

CONCLUSIONS

When relevant CEAs were available, cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with quality measures (measures were cost-effective). Nevertheless, most quality measures were based on subjective ratings or outcome measures, posing a challenge in identifying supporting economic evidence. Refining and aligning quality measures with cost-effectiveness evidence can help further improve healthcare efficiency by demonstrating that they are good indicators of both quality and cost-effectiveness of care.

Spatial accessibility to colonoscopy and its role in predicting late-stage colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To better determine the relationship between spatial access to colonoscopy and colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, our objective was to examine the agreement of the classic, enhanced, and variable two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) methods in evaluating spatial access to colonoscopy and to compare the predictive validity of each method related to late-stage CRC. 2SFCA methods simultaneously consider supply/demand of services and impedance (ie, travel time).

DATA SOURCES

Colonoscopy provider locations were obtained from the South Carolina Ambulatory Surgery Database. ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) level population estimates and area-level poverty level were obtained from the American Community Survey. Rurality was determined by the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. Individual-level CRC data were obtained from the South Carolina Central Cancer Registry.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the classic, enhanced, and variable 2SFCA methods, we calculated ZCTA-level spatial access to colonoscopy. We assessed agreement between the three methods by calculating Spearman's rank coefficients and weighted Kappas (Κ). Global and Local Moran's I were used to assess spatial clustering of accessibility scores across 2SFCA methods. We performed multilevel logistic regression analyses to examine the association between spatial accessibility to colonoscopy, area- and individual-level factors, and late-stage CRC.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We found strong agreement (Weighted Κ = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79-0.86) and identified similar clustering patterns with the classic and enhanced 2SFCA methods. There was negligible agreement among the classic/enhanced 2SFCA and the variable 2SFCA. Across all 2SFCA methods, regression models showed that spatial access to colonoscopy, rurality, and poverty level were not associated with greater odds of late-stage CRC, though Black race was associated with late-stage CRC across all models.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the 2SFCA methods showed an association with late-stage CRC. Future studies should explore which elements (spatial or nonspatial) of access to care have the greatest impact on CRC outcomes.

Cost of Increasing Years-of-Life-Gained (YLG) Using Fecal Immunochemical Testing as a Population-Level Screening Model in a Rural Appalachian Population

PURPOSE

Given the innovation of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) to detect polyps in the rectum and colon for removal by colonoscopy, it is important to determine the cost per Life-Year Gained (LYG) when using FIT as a population-level screening model. This is particularly true for medically underserved rural populations. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to make this determination among rural Appalachians experiencing isolation and economic challenges.

METHODS

The study occurred in an 8-county area of southeastern Kentucky. Kits were distributed to 1,424 residents. Seven hundred thirty-two kits (51.4%) were completed and returned. A Markov decision-analytic model was developed using PrecisionTree 7.6.

FINDINGS

Reactive test results occurred for 144 of the completed kits (19.7%). Thirty-seven colonoscopies were verified, with 15 of these indicating precancerous changes or actual cancer. Program costs were estimated at $461,952, with the average cost per person screened estimated at $324. Cost per LYG was $7,912.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to an average cost per LYG of $17,200, our findings suggest a highly favorable cost-effectiveness ratio for this population of medically underserved rural residents. Cost-benefit analyses suggest that the screening program begins to yield positive net benefits at the stage when project recipients undergo colonoscopy, suggesting that this is the key step for behavioral intervention and intensified outreach.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant health problem with an increasing incidence worldwide. Screening is one of the ways, in which cases and deaths of CRC can be prevented. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different CRC screening techniques and to specify the efficient technique from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

METHODS

The economic studies of CRC screening in general populations (average risk), aged 50 years and above were reviewed. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full-texts of the studies in five databases: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. The disagreements between reviewers were resolved through the authors' consensus. The main outcome measures in this systematic review were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus no-screening and then in comparison with other screening techniques. The ICER is defined by the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified and retained for the final analysis. In this study, when screening techniques were compared to no-screening, all CRC screening techniques showed to be cost-effective. The lowest ICER calculated was $PPP -16265/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (the negative ICERs were between purchasing power parity in US dollar ($PPP) -16265/QALY to $PPP -1988/QALY, whereas the positive ICERs were between $PPP 1257/QALY to $PPP 55987/QALY). For studies comparing various screening techniques, there was great heterogeneity in terms of the structures of the analyses, leading to diverse conclusions about their incremental cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

All CRC screening techniques were cost-effective, compared with the no-screening methods. The cost-effectiveness of the various screening techniques mainly was dependent on the context-specific parameters and highly affected by the framework of the cost-effectiveness analysis. In order to make the studies comparable, it is important to adopt a reference-based methodology for economic evaluation studies.

Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to assess the impact and validity of simulation modeling in informing decision making in a complex area of healthcare delivery: colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases for English-language articles published between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 2019, that described the development of a simulation model with a focus on average-risk CRC screening delivery. Included articles were reviewed for evidence that the model was validated, and provided real or potential contribution to informed decision making using the GRADE EtD (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision) framework.

RESULTS

A total of 43 studies met criteria. The majority used Markov modeling (n = 31 [72%]) and sought to determine cost-effectiveness, compare screening modalities, or assess effectiveness of screening. No study reported full model validation and only (58%) reported conducting any validation. Majority of models were developed to address a specific health systems or policy question; few articles report the model's impact on this decision (n = 39 [91%] vs. n = 5 [12%]). Overall, models provided evidence relevant to every element important to decision makers as outlined in the GRADE EtD framework.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Simulation modeling contributes evidence that is considered valuable to decision making in CRC screening delivery, particularly in assessing cost-effectiveness and comparing screening modalities. However, the actual impact on decisions and validity of models is lacking in the literature. Greater validity testing, impact assessment, and standardized reporting of both is needed to understand and demonstrate the reliability and utility of simulation modeling.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy are the most commonly used strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. We aimed to compare their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in CRC screening in an average-risk population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Risk ratio (RR) was used to evaluate the differences in detection rates of colorectal neoplasia between FIT and colonoscopy groups. A random-effects model was used to pool RRs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies were included. The participation rate in the FIT group was higher than that in the colonoscopy group (41.6% vs 21.9%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, FIT had a detection rate of CRC comparable with colonoscopy (RR, .73; 95% confidence interval, .37-1.42) and lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Most included cost-effectiveness studies showed that annual (13/15) or biennial (5/6) FIT was cost-saving (ICER < $0) or very cost-effective ($0 < ICER ≤ $25000/quality-adjusted life-year) compared with colonoscopy every 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT may be similar to 1-time colonoscopy in the detection rate of CRC, although it has lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Furthermore, annual or biennial FIT appears to be very cost-effective or cost-saving compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. These findings indicate, at least partly, that FIT is noninferior to colonoscopy in CRC screening in an average-risk population. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.

Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has proven effective in reducing CRC mortality. This study aimed to systematically review, and evaluate the reporting quality, of the economic evidence regarding CRC screening in average-risk individuals.

Methods

Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment database. Eligible studies were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing CRC screening strategies in average-risk individuals, published in English or Spanish, between January 2012 and November 2018. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

Of 1,993 publications initially retrieved, 477 were excluded by duplicate review, 1,449 by title/abstract review, and 34 by full-text review. Finally, 33 publications were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies were conducted in Europe (36,4%), followed by United States (24,2%) and Asia (24,2%). The main screening modalities considered were fecal immunochemical tests (70%), colonoscopy (67%), guaiac fecal occult blood test (42%) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (30%). In most studies, CRC screening was deemed cost-effective compared to no screening. Sensitivity analyses indicated that cost of CRC screening tests, adherence to screening, screening test sensitivity, and cost of CRC treatment had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results across studies. The majority of studies (73%) adequately reported at least 50% of the items included in the CHEERS checklist. Least well reported items included setting, study perspective, discount rate, model choice, and methods to identify effectiveness data or to estimate resource use and costs.

Conclusions

CRC screening is an efficient alternative to no screening. Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude which strategy should be preferred for population-based screening programs. Although we observed an overall good adherence to CHEERS recommendations, there is still room for improvement in economic evaluations reporting in this field.

Assessing adherence and cost-benefit of colorectal cancer screening for accountable providers

The objective of this study was to assess adherence and costs-benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings from an accountable care organization/population health perspective. We performed a retrospective review of 94 patients (50-75 years of age) in an integrated safety net system for whom fecal CRC screening was abnormal for the period of June 1, 2014, to June 1, 2016. A cost-benefit model was constructed using Medicare payment rates and a sensitivity analysis. Most patients included in the study (64/94, 68%) received or were offered a colonoscopy. Of those receiving a colonoscopy, 24 of 45 (53%) had an abnormal finding. Total direct medical costs avoided by screening the patient panel was $32,926 but could have exceeded $63,237 had more patients received follow-up colonoscopies. A sensitivity analysis with 1000 patients demonstrated total monetary benefits between $2.2 million and $8.16 million when follow-up and colonoscopy rates were allowed to vary. Although the resulting rates of follow-up were within the range reported in the literature, there is room for improvement, especially considering the monetary benefit that could be used on other diseases. Health systems and payers should work cooperatively to structure payment models to better incentivize CRC screenings.

Disparities in Utilization of Medical Specialists for Colonoscopy

Purpose: Colonoscopy is the preferred screening modality for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. The quality of the procedure varies although medical specialists such as gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons tend to have better outcomes. We aimed to determine whether there are demographic and clinical differences between those who received a colonoscopy from a specialist versus those who received a colonoscopy from a nonspecialist.

Methods: Using the population-based South Carolina Outpatient Ambulatory Surgery Database, we looked retrospectively to obtain patient-level endoscopy records from 2010 to 2014. We used multilevel logistic regression to model whether patients saw a specialist for their colonoscopy. The primary variables were patient race and insurance type, and an interaction by rurality was tested.

Results: Of the 392,285 patients included in the analysis, 81% saw a specialist for their colonoscopy. County of residence explained 30% of the variability in the outcome. Non-Hispanic black (OR=0.65; confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.64–0.67) and Hispanic patients (OR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.67–0.84) were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to see a specialist. Compared with commercial/HMO insurance, all other types were less likely to see a specialist, and even more so for rural patients. The interaction of race by rurality was not significant.

Conclusions: Specialists play a key role in CRC screening and can affect later downstream outcomes. This study has shown that ethnic minorities and adults with public or other insurance, particularly in rural areas, are most likely not to see a specialist. These results are consistent with disparities in CRC incidence, mortality, and survival.

Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Widespread screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has reduced its incidence and mortality. Previous studies investigated the economic effects of CRC screening. We performed a systematic review to provide up-to-date evidence of the cost effectiveness of CRC screening strategies by answering 3 research questions.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Social Sciences Citation Index (via the Web of Science), EconLit (American Economic Association) and 3 supplemental databases for original articles published in English from January 2010 through December 2017. All monetary values were converted to US dollars (year 2016). For all research questions, we extracted, or calculated (if necessary), per-person costs and life years (LYs) and/or quality-adjusted LYs, as well as the incremental costs per LY gained or quality-adjusted LY gained compared with the baseline strategy. A cost-saving strategy was defined as one that was less costly and equally or more effective than the baseline strategy. The net monetary benefit approach was used to answer research question 2.

RESULTS

Our review comprised 33 studies (17 from Europe, 11 from North America, 4 from Asia, and 1 from Australia). Annual and biennial guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests, annual and biennial fecal immunochemical tests, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years were cost effective (even cost saving in most US models) compared to no screening. In addition, colonoscopy every 10 years was less costly and/or more effective than other common strategies in the United States. Newer strategies such as computed tomographic colonography, every 5 or 10 years, was cost effective compared with no screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In an updated review, we found that common CRC screening strategies and computed tomographic colonography continued to be cost effective compared to no screening. There were discrepancies among studies from different regions, which could be associated with the model types or model assumptions.

Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The American Cancer Society has recommended initiating colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at age 45 years instead of 50 years. We estimated the cost effectiveness and national effects of adopting this recommendation.

METHODS

We compared screening strategies and alternative resource allocations in a validated Markov model. We based national projections on screening participation rates by age and census data.

RESULTS

Screening colonoscopy initiation at age 45 years instead of 50 years in 1000 persons averted 4 CRCs and 2 CRC deaths, gained 14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost $33,900/QALY gained, and required 758 additional colonoscopies. These 758 colonoscopies could instead be used to screen 231 currently unscreened 55-year-old persons or 342 currently unscreened 65-year-old persons, through age 75 years. These alternatives averted 13-14 CRC cases and 6-7 CRC deaths and gained 27-28 discounted QALYs while saving $163,700-$445,800. Improving colonoscopy completion rates after abnormal results from a fecal immunochemical test yielded greater benefits and savings. Initiation of fecal immunochemical testing at age 45 years instead of 50 years cost $7700/QALY gained. Shifting current age-specific screening rates to 5 years earlier could avert 29,400 CRC cases and 11,100 CRC deaths over the next 5 years but would require 10.7 million additional colonoscopies and cost an incremental $10.4 billion. Improving screening rates to 80% in persons who are 50-75 years old would avert nearly 3-fold more CRC deaths at one third the incremental cost.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model analysis, we found that starting CRC screening at age 45 years is likely to be cost effective. However, greater benefit, at lower cost, could be achieved by increasing participation rates for unscreened older and higher-risk persons.

Medical Diagnostic Tests: A Review of Test Anatomy, Phases, and Statistical Treatment of Data

Diagnostic tests are approaches used in clinical practice to identify with high accuracy the disease of a particular patient and thus to provide early and proper treatment. Reporting high-quality results of diagnostic tests, for both basic and advanced methods, is solely the responsibility of the authors. Despite the existence of recommendation and standards regarding the content or format of statistical aspects, the quality of what and how the statistic is reported when a diagnostic test is assessed varied from excellent to very poor. This article briefly reviews the steps in the evaluation of a diagnostic test from the anatomy, to the role in clinical practice, and to the statistical methods used to show their performances. The statistical approaches are linked with the phase, clinical question, and objective and are accompanied by examples. More details are provided for phase I and II studies while the statistical treatment of phase III and IV is just briefly presented. Several free online resources useful in the calculation of some statistics are also given.

Contrasting Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Under Commercial Insurance vs. Medicare

OBJECTIVES

Most cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening assume Medicare payment rates and a lifetime horizon. Our aims were to examine the implications of differential payment levels and time horizons for commercial insurers vs. Medicare on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening.

METHODS

We used our validated Markov cohort simulation of CRC screening in the average risk US population to examine CRC screening at ages 50-64 under commercial insurance, and at ages 65-80 under Medicare, using a health-care sector perspective. Model outcomes included discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per person, and incremental cost/QALY gained.

RESULTS

Lifetime costs/person were 20-44% higher when assuming commercial payment rates rather than Medicare rates for people under 65. Most of the substantial clinical benefit of screening at ages 50-64 was realized at ages ≥65. For commercial payers with a time horizon of ages 50-64, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) were cost-effective (<$61,000/QALY gained), but colonoscopy was costly (>$185,000/QALY gained). Medicare experienced substantial clinical benefits and cost-savings from screening done at ages <65, even if screening was not continued. Among those previously screened, continuing FOBT and FIT under Medicare was cost-saving and continuing colonoscopy was highly cost-effective (<$30,000/QALY gained), and initiating any screening in those previously unscreened was highly effective and cost-saving.

CONCLUSIONS

Modeling suggests that CRC screening is highly cost-effective over a lifetime even when considering higher payment rates by commercial payers vs. Medicare. Screening may appear relatively costly for commercial payers if only a time horizon of ages 50-64 is considered, but it is predicted to yield substantial clinical and economic benefits that accrue primarily at ages ≥65 under Medicare.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Recent diagnostic procedures for colorectal cancer screening: Are they cost-effective?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cause of death. Reduction in mortality rates in some countries worldwide are most likely ascribed to CRC screening and/or improved treatments. We reviewed the most relevant articles which discuss the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening procedures, in particular, the recent ones through the last eight years. The effectiveness of screening estimated by discounted life years gained (LYGs) compared to no screening, differed considerably between the studies. Despite these differences, all studies consistently emphasized that screening for CRC was cost-effective compared with no screening for each of the recognized screening strategies. Newer technologies for colorectal cancer screening, including computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA test, and Pillcam Colon are less invasive and accurate, however, they are not cost-effective, as their cost was higher than all other established screening strategies. When compliance and adherence to such new techniques are increased more than the established strategies they would be more cost-effective particularly CTC.

The Liver at the Nexus of Host-Microbial Interactions

The liver receives blood from the intestine, from the spleen, and directly from the heart and holds a vital position in vertebrate physiology. It plays a role in intermediary metabolism, bile secretion, maintaining blood sterility, serum homeostasis, xenobiotic detoxification, and immunological activity. This article provides our perspective on the liver as a nexus in establishing and maintaining host microbial mutualism. We discuss the role of the liver not only in sanitizing the blood stream from penetrant live microbes, but also in metabolizing xenobiotics that are synthesized or modified by intestinal microbes, and how microbiota modify the signaling potential of bile acids. The combination of bile acids as hormones and the metabolic control from pervasive effects of other absorbed microbial molecules powerfully shape hepatic metabolism. In addition, intestinal microbial metabolites can be sensed by liver-resident immune cells, which may disturb liver homeostasis, leading to fibrosis and liver cancer.

Fecal occult blood versus DNA testing: indirect comparison in a colorectal cancer screening population

Background

A multitarget stool DNA test (MSDT) that showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity than a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for hemoglobin in one recent study from the US and Canada, is increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, despite its ~20-fold higher costs compared to FITs. We aimed to assess diagnostic performance of a quantitative FIT in an independent study among participants of screening colonoscopy and to compare it with the previously reported performance of MSDT.

Methods

A total of 3494 participants, aged 50–84 years, who underwent screening colonoscopy in private gastroenterological practices in Germany, and who provided a stool sample before colonoscopy to be evaluated by a commercially available quantitative FIT (FOB Gold^®) were included. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity) for detecting CRC or advanced precancerous lesions (APCLs) was evaluated by comparison of test results with findings at screening colonoscopy. In addition to the original cutoff, we used an adjusted cutoff yielding the same specificity as reported for the MSDT to enhance comparability.

Results

The most advanced finding at colonoscopy was CRC and APCL in 30 (0.86%) and 359 (10.3%) cases, respectively. At a cutoff yielding the same specificity as reported for MSDT (86.6%), the sensitivities (95% CI) of the FIT for detecting CRC and APCL >1 cm were 96.7% (82.8–99.9%) and 54.3% (48.3–60.3%), respectively. These sensitivities are higher than those reported for MSDT (92.3% and 43.6%, p=0.66 and 0.003, respectively).

Conclusion

In this large screening population, FIT showed equivalent or better diagnostic performance in comparison to reported performance of MSDT.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Several screening tests are available to detect colorectal cancer (CRC) and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. The purpose of this review was to determine how current CRC screening strategies for CRC compare with no screening and whether agreement exists with regard to the cost effectiveness of different strategies.

METHODS

Databases were searched for cost-effectiveness analyses focused on CRC screening strategies in the United States and published between May 2007 and February 2014. We analyzed the uses of fecal occult blood, fecal immunochemistry, and stool DNA tests, as well as sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and virtual colonoscopy. A paired comparison of each screening strategy with no screening across each of the studies reviewed was conducted. A series of paired comparisons of the results reported in each of the studies is also included.

RESULTS

When compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies evaluated in this review were cost effective. There was disagreement as to which screening strategy was the most cost effective. However, sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal blood testing always dominated either strategy alone. Studies comparing colonoscopy with fecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or both had mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies are more cost effective. Study results disagree as to which screening strategy should be the preferred method.

Using Active Learning for Speeding up Calibration in Simulation Models

BACKGROUND

Most cancer simulation models include unobservable parameters that determine disease onset and tumor growth. These parameters play an important role in matching key outcomes such as cancer incidence and mortality, and their values are typically estimated via a lengthy calibration procedure, which involves evaluating a large number of combinations of parameter values via simulation. The objective of this study is to demonstrate how machine learning approaches can be used to accelerate the calibration process by reducing the number of parameter combinations that are actually evaluated.

METHODS

Active learning is a popular machine learning method that enables a learning algorithm such as artificial neural networks to interactively choose which parameter combinations to evaluate. We developed an active learning algorithm to expedite the calibration process. Our algorithm determines the parameter combinations that are more likely to produce desired outputs and therefore reduces the number of simulation runs performed during calibration. We demonstrate our method using the previously developed University of Wisconsin breast cancer simulation model (UWBCS).

RESULTS

In a recent study, calibration of the UWBCS required the evaluation of 378 000 input parameter combinations to build a race-specific model, and only 69 of these combinations produced results that closely matched observed data. By using the active learning algorithm in conjunction with standard calibration methods, we identify all 69 parameter combinations by evaluating only 5620 of the 378 000 combinations.

CONCLUSION

Machine learning methods hold potential in guiding model developers in the selection of more promising parameter combinations and hence speeding up the calibration process. Applying our machine learning algorithm to one model shows that evaluating only 1.49% of all parameter combinations would be sufficient for the calibration.

The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy

Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and colonoscopy are two common screening tools for colorectal cancer(CRC). Most cost-effectiveness studies focused on survival as the outcome, and were based on modeling techniques instead of real world observational data. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these two tests to detect colorectal neoplastic lesions based on data from a 5-year community screening service. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed based on the detection rates of neoplastic lesions, and costs including screening compliance, polypectomy, colonoscopy complications, and staging of CRC detected. A total of 5,863 patients received yearly FIT and 4,869 received colonoscopy. Compared with FIT, colonoscopy detected notably more adenomas (23.6% vs. 1.6%) and advanced lesions or cancer (4.2% vs. 1.2%). Using FIT as control, the ICER of screening colonoscopy in detecting adenoma, advanced adenoma, CRC and a composite endpoint of either advanced adenoma or stage I CRC was US$3,489, US$27,962, US$922,762 and US$23,981 respectively. The respective ICER was US$3,597, US$439,513, -US$2,765,876 and US$32,297 among lower-risk subjects; whilst the corresponding figure was US$3,153, US$14,852, US$184,162 and US$13,919 among higher-risk subjects. When compared to FIT, colonoscopy is considered cost-effective for screening adenoma, advanced neoplasia, and a composite endpoint of advanced neoplasia or stage I CRC.

Using the Cancer Risk Management Model to evaluate colorectal cancer screening options for Canada

BACKGROUND

Several screening methods for colorectal cancer (crc) are available, and some have been shown by randomized trials to be effective. In the present study, we used a well-developed population health simulation model to compare the risks and benefits of a variety of screening scenarios. Tests considered were the fecal occult blood test (fobt), the fecal immunochemical test (fit), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Outcomes considered included years of life gained, crc cases and deaths prevented, and direct health system costs.

METHODS

A natural history model of crc was implemented and calibrated to specified targets within the framework of the Cancer Risk Management Model (crmm) from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The crmm-crc permits users to enter their own parameter values or to use program-specified base values. For each of 23 screening scenarios, we used the crmm-crc to run 10 million replicate simulations.

RESULTS

Using base parameter values and some user-specified values in the crmm-crc, and comparing our screening scenarios with no screening, all screening scenarios were found to reduce the incidence of and mortality from crc. The fobt was the least effective test; it was not associated with lower net cost. Colonoscopy screening was the most effective test; it had net costs comparable to those for several other strategies considered, but required more than 3 times the colonoscopy resources needed by other approaches. After colonoscopy, strategies based on the fit were predicted to be the most effective. In sensitivity analyses performed for the fobt and fit screening strategies, fobt parameter values associated with high-sensitivity formulations were associated with a substantial increase in test effectiveness. The fit was more cost-effective at the 50 ng/mL threshold than at the 100 ng/mL threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The crmm-crc provides a sophisticated and flexible environment in which to evaluate crc control options. All screening scenarios considered in this study effectively reduced crc mortality, although sensitivity analyses demonstrated some uncertainty in the magnitude of the improvements. Where possible, local data should be used to reduce uncertainty in the parameters.

Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018

BACKGROUND

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, a national coalition of public, private, and voluntary organizations, has recently announced an initiative to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018. The authors evaluated the potential public health benefits of achieving this goal.

METHODS

The authors simulated the 1980 through 2030 United States population of individuals aged 50 to 100 years using microsimulation modeling. Test-specific historical screening rates were based on National Health Interview Survey data for 1987 through 2013. The effects of increasing screening rates from approximately 58% in 2013 to 80% in 2018 were compared to a scenario in which the screening rate remained approximately constant. The outcomes were cancer incidence and mortality rates and numbers of CRC cases and deaths during short-term follow-up (2013-2020) and extended follow-up (2013-2030).

RESULTS

Increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2018 would reduce CRC incidence rates by 17% and mortality rates by 19% during short-term follow-up and by 22% and 33%, respectively, during extended follow-up. These reductions would amount to a total of 277,000 averted new cancers and 203,000 averted CRC deaths from 2013 through 2030.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving the goal of increasing the uptake of CRC screening in the United States to 80% by 2018 may have a considerable public health impact by averting approximately 280,000 new cancer cases and 200,000 cancer deaths within <20 years. Cancer 2015;121:2281–2285. © 2015 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives

Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66–90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines. In addition, the latest data on the use of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey is described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the expansion of the Medicaid program.