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

Assessment of barriers to cancer screening and interventions implemented to overcome these barriers in 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries

There is a gap in the understanding of the barriers to cancer screening participation and complying with downstream management in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (CELAC). Our study aimed to assess barriers across the cancer screening pathway from the health system perspective, and interventions in place to improve screening in CELAC. A standardized tool was used to collect information on the barriers across the screening pathway through engagement with the health authorities of 27 member states of CELAC. Barriers were organized in a framework adapted from the Tanahashi conceptual model and consisted of the following dimensions: availability of services, access (covering accessibility and affordability), acceptability, user-provider interaction, and effectiveness of services (which includes governance, protocols and guidelines, information system, and quality assurance). The tool also collected information of interventions in place, categorized in user-directed interventions to increase demand, user-directed interventions to increase access, provider-directed interventions, and policy and system-level interventions. All countries prioritized barriers related to the information systems, such as the population register not being accurate or complete (N = 19; 70.4%). All countries implemented some kind of intervention to improve cancer screening, group education being the most reported (N = 23; 85.2%). Training on screening delivery was the most referred provider-directed intervention (N = 19; 70.4%). The study has identified several barriers to the implementation of cancer screening in the region and interventions in place to overcome some of the barriers. Further analysis is required to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in achieving their objectives.

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.

Optimal timing of a colonoscopy screening schedule depends on adenoma detection, adenoma risk, adherence to screening and the screening objective: A microsimulation study

Colonoscopy-based screening provides protection against colorectal cancer (CRC), but the optimal starting age and time intervals of screening colonoscopies are unknown. We aimed to determine an optimal screening schedule for the US population and its dependencies on the objective of screening (life years gained or incidence, mortality, or cost reduction) and the setting in which screening is performed. We used our established open-source microsimulation model CMOST to calculate optimized colonoscopy schedules with one, two, three or four screening colonoscopies between 20 and 90 years of age. A single screening colonoscopy was most effective in reducing life years lost from CRC when performed at 55 years of age. Two, three and four screening colonoscopy schedules saved a maximum number of life years when performed between 49-64 years; 44-69 years; and 40-72 years; respectively. However, for maximum incidence and mortality reduction, screening colonoscopies needed to be scheduled 4-8 years later in life. The optimum was also influenced by adenoma detection efficiency with lower values for these parameters favoring a later starting age of screening. Low adherence to screening consistently favored a later start and an earlier end of screening. In a personalized approach, optimal screening would start earlier for high-risk patients and later for low-risk individuals. In conclusion, our microsimulation-based approach supports colonoscopy screening schedule between 45 and 75 years of age but the precise timing depends on the objective of screening, as well as assumptions regarding individual CRC risk, efficiency of adenoma detection during colonoscopy and adherence to screening.

Longitudinal adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening among Black persons living in the United States enrolled in a community-based randomized trial

BACKGROUND

This study examined repeat colorectal cancer screening rates at 12 and 24 months as part of a randomized intervention trial among Black persons living in the United States and factors associated with screening adherence.

METHODS

Participants completed a survey assessing demographics and Preventive Health Model (PHM) factors (e.g., self efficacy, susceptibility) and received either a culturally targeted photonovella plus free fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits (intervention group) or a standard educational brochure plus free FIT kits (comparison group). FIT return was assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months. Descriptive statistics summarized patterns of repeat screening. Logistic regression models assessed FIT uptake overtime, and demographic and PHM factors associated with screening adherence.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 330) were U.S.-born (93%), non-Hispanic (97%), and male (52%). Initial FIT uptake within 6 months of enrollment was 86.6%, and subsequently dropped to 54.5% at 12 months and 36.6% at 24 months. Higher FIT return rates were observed for the brochure group at 24 months (51.5% vs 33.3% photonovella, p = .023). Multiple patterns of FIT kit return were observed: 37% completed FIT at all three time points (full adherence), 22% completed two of three (partial adherence), 29% completed one of three (partial adherence), and 12% did not return any FIT kits (complete nonadherence). Predictors of full adherence were higher levels of education and self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Full adherence to repeat screening was suboptimal. Most participants had partial adherence (one or two of three) to annual FIT screening. Future studies should focus on strategies to support repeat FIT screening.

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.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Latin America: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with increasing incidence and mortality in Latin America. CRC screening programs can reduce disease burden, but information on screening programs in Latin America is limited.

Objective

To describe characteristics (eg, type of program, uptake, neoplastic yield) of CRC screening programs in Latin America.

Data Sources

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, LILACS, and SciELO were searched from inception to February 2023. Relevant references from bibliographies, conference proceedings, and gray literature were considered. The search strategy included English, Spanish, and Portuguese terms.

Study Selection

Included were studies of CRC screening programs in Latin America using fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy as the primary screening method. Four reviewers independently assessed study eligibility based on titles, with review of abstracts and full texts as needed.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were followed for data abstraction and quality assessment. Descriptive information was extracted, and data were pooled using a random-effects model.

Main outcomes and Measures

Program performance indicators included rates of participation and FIT positivity, adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), CRC detection rate, and colonoscopy quality indicators.

Results

There were 17 studies included from upper middle-income and high-income countries in Latin America with a total of 123 929 participants. Thirteen studies used FIT as the initial screening method, whereas 4 used screening colonoscopy. The participation rate in FIT-based programs was 85.8% (95% CI, 78.5%-91.4%). FIT positivity rates were 15.2% (95% CI, 9.6%-21.8%) for the 50-ng/mL threshold and 9.7% (95% CI, 6.8%-13.0%) for the 100-ng/mL threshold. For FIT-based studies, the pooled ADR was 39.0% (95% CI, 29.3%-49.2%) and CRC detection rate was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-7.9%); for screening colonoscopy-based studies, the pooled ADR was 19.9% (95% CI, 15.5%-24.8%) and CRC detection rate was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that CRC screening in upper middle-income countries in Latin America is feasible, detecting rates of neoplasia comparable with those of high-income regions. Population-based screening programs should be developed or enhanced in these settings. There is a knowledge gap regarding feasibility and yield of screening programs in lower middle-income countries.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the range of strategies analysed in European cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with respect to the screening intervals, age ranges and test cut-offs used to define positivity, to examine how this might influence what strategies are found to be optimal, and compare them with the current screening policies with a focus on the screening interval.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for peer-reviewed, model-based CEAs of CRC screening. We included studies on average-risk European populations using the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or faecal immunochemical test (FIT). We adapted Drummond's ten-point checklist to appraise study quality.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Biennial screening was the most frequently used interval which was analysed in 37 studies. Annual screening was assessed in 13 studies, all of which found it optimally cost-effective. Despite this, 25 of 26 European stool-based programmes use biennial screening. Many CEAs did not vary the age range, but the 14 that did generally found broader ranges optimal. Only 11 studies considered alternative FIT cut-offs, 9 of which found lower cut-offs superior. Conflicts between current policy and CEA evidence are less clear regarding age ranges and cut-offs.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing CEA evidence indicates that the widely adopted biennial frequency of stool-based testing in Europe is suboptimal. It is likely that many more lives could be saved throughout Europe if programmes could be offered with more intensive annual screening.

Implementing a mailed stool sample screening program in clinics providing care for an underserved Hispanic population

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Hispanics in the US. Despite this, Hispanics are being screened for CRC at a much lower rate than their non-Hispanic white counterparts. Implementing mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is a cost-effective intervention for increasing CRC screening rates in vulnerable populations, such as Hispanic populations in border metroplexes. We aimed to describe the effect of introductory calls coupled with mailed in-home FIT kits on CRC screening completion in two federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in a US-Mexico border county. This was a prospective, pragmatic, two-arm intervention study with participants allocated to receive a FIT kit with a reminder call (usual care) or usual care preceded by an introductory call. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who returned the FIT kits. Participants who returned to the FIT were primarily unemployed (54.4%), had less than a high school education (60.2%), lived in the US for at least 20 years (74.4%), and had poor self-reported health (54.4%). In addition, we observed a statistically significant increase in the absolute rate (4.5%, P = 0.003) of FITs returned when a mailed FIT kit was preceded by an introductory call compared with no initial call. This study demonstrated that adding an introductory phone call significantly improved the screening completion rate in a mailed-out CRC screening intervention in the US-Mexico border population.

Geographical and spatial variations in bowel cancer screening participation, Australia, 2015-2020

BACKGROUND

Participation in bowel cancer screening programs remains poor in many countries. Knowledge of geographical variation in participation rates may help design targeted interventions to improve uptake. This study describes small-area and broad geographical patterns in bowel screening participation in Australia between 2015-2020.

METHODS

Publicly available population-level participation data for Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) were modelled using generalized linear models to quantify screening patterns by remoteness and area-level disadvantage. Bayesian spatial models were used to obtain smoothed estimates of participation across 2,247 small areas during 2019-2020 compared to the national average, and during 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 for comparison. Spatial heterogeneity was assessed using the maximized excess events test.

RESULTS

Overall, screening participation rates was around 44% over the three time-periods. Participation was consistently lower in remote or disadvantaged areas, although heterogeneity was evident within these broad categories. There was strong evidence of spatial differences in participation over all three periods, with little change in patterns between time periods. If the spatial variation was reduced (so low participation areas were increased to the 80th centile), an extra 250,000 screens (4% of total) would have been conducted during 2019-2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having a well-structured evidence-based government funded national bowel cancer screening program, the substantial spatial variation in participation rates highlights the importance of accounting for the unique characteristics of specific geographical regions and their inhabitants. Identifying the reasons for geographical disparities could inform interventions to achieve more equitable access and a higher overall bowel screening uptake.

Performance of the Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasms and Colorectal Cancers in People Aged 40-49 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. Many guidelines recommend initiating screening at 45 years. This study investigated the detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasm (ACRN) by using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) in individuals aged 40-49 years.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 2022. The primary outcomes were the detection rates and positive predictive values of FITs for ACRN and CRC in people aged 40-49 (younger age group) and ≥50 years (average risk group).

RESULTS

Ten studies with 664,159 FITs were included. The FIT positivity rate was 4.9% and 7.3% for the younger age and average risk groups, respectively. Younger individuals with positive FIT results had significantly higher risks of ACRN (odds ratio [OR] 2.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.79-3.73) or CRC (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.59-5.13) than did individuals in the average-risk group, regardless of FIT results. Individuals aged 45-49 years with positive FIT results had a similar risk of ACRN (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.29) to that of people aged 50-59 years with positive FIT results, although significant heterogeneity was observed. The positive predictive values of the FIT were 10-28.1% for ACRN and 2.7-6.8% for CRC in the younger age group.

CONCLUSION

The detection rate of ACRN and CRC based on FITs in individuals aged 40-49 years is acceptable, and the yield of ACRN might be similar between individuals aged 45-49 and 50-59 years. Further prospective cohort and cost-effective analysis are warranted.

Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening on All-Cause and CRC-Specific Mortality Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The aim of this study was to pool and compare all-cause and colorectal cancer (CRC) specific mortality reduction of CRC screening in randomized control trials (RCTs) and simulation models, and to determine factors that influence screening effectiveness. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies. Multi-use simulation models or RCTs that compared the mortality of CRC screening with no screening in general population were included. CRC-specific and all-cause mortality rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by a bivariate random model. (3) Results: 10 RCTs and 47 model studies were retrieved. The pooled CRC-specific mortality rate ratios in RCTs were 0.88 (0.80, 0.96) and 0.76 (0.68, 0.84) for guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) and single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening, respectively. For the model studies, the rate ratios were 0.45 (0.39, 0.51) for biennial fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), 0.31 (0.28, 0.34) for biennial gFOBT, 0.61 (0.53, 0.72) for single FS, 0.27 (0.21, 0.35) for 10-yearly colonoscopy, and 0.35 (0.29, 0.42) for 5-yearly FS. The CRC-specific mortality reduction of gFOBT increased with higher adherence in both studies (RCT: 0.78 (0.68, 0.89) vs. 0.92 (0.87, 0.98), model: 0.30 (0.28, 0.33) vs. 0.92 (0.51, 1.63)). Model studies showed a 0.62-1.1% all-cause mortality reduction with single FS screening. (4) Conclusions: Based on RCTs and model studies, biennial FIT/gFOBT, single and 5-yearly FS, and 10-yearly colonoscopy screening significantly reduces CRC-specific mortality. The model estimates are much higher than in RCTs, because the simulated biennial gFOBT assumes higher adherence. The effectiveness of screening increases at younger screening initiation ages and higher adherences.

Comparison of Colonoscopy, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Risk-Adapted Approach in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial (TARGET-C)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The screening yield and related cost of a risk-adapted screening approach compared with established screening strategies in population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are not clear.

METHODS

We randomly allocated 19,373 participants into 1 of the 3 screening arms in a 1:2:2 ratio: (1) one-time colonoscopy (n = 3883); (2) annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (n = 7793); (3) annual risk-adapted screening (n = 7697), in which, based on the risk-stratification score, high-risk participants were referred for colonoscopy and low-risk ones were referred for FIT. Three consecutive screening rounds were conducted for both the FIT and the risk-adapted screening arms. Follow-up to trace the health outcome for all the participants was conducted over the 3-year study period. The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRC and advanced precancerous lesions) was the main outcome. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (number: ChiCTR1800015506).

RESULTS

In the colonoscopy, FIT, and risk-adapted screening arms over 3 screening rounds, the participation rates were 42.4%, 99.3%, and 89.2%, respectively; the detection rates for advanced neoplasm (intention-to-treat analysis) were 2.76%, 2.17%, and 2.35%, respectively, with an odds ratio (OR)colonoscopy vs FIT of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.63; P = .056), an ORcolonoscopy vsrisk-adapted screening of 1.17 (95% CI, 0.91-1.49; P = .218), and an ORrisk-adapted screeningvs FIT of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.88-1.35; P = .438); the numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect 1 advanced neoplasm were 15.4, 7.8, and 10.2, respectively; the costs for detecting 1 advanced neoplasm from a government perspective using package payment format were 6928 Chinese Yuan (CNY) ($1004), 5821 CNY ($844), and 6694 CNY ($970), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk-adapted approach is a feasible and cost-favorable strategy for population-based CRC screening and therefore could complement the well-established one-time colonoscopy and annual repeated FIT screening strategies. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; ChiCTR1800015506).

The Use of a Non-Invasive Biomarker for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Modeling Study

This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of fecal biomarker M3 panel compared to fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy in an Asian population. In a hypothetical population of 100,000 persons aged 50 years who received FIT yearly, M3 biomarker yearly, or colonoscopy every 10 years until the age of 75 years. Participants with positive FOBT or a result of "high risk" identified using the M3 biomarker are offered colonoscopy. We assumed surveillance colonoscopy is repeated every 3 years, and examined the treatment cost. A comparison of various outcome measures was conducted using Markov modelling. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FIT, M3 biomarker, and colonoscopy was USD108,176, USD133,485 and USD159,596, respectively. Comparing with FIT, the use of M3 biomarker could lead to significantly smaller total loss of cancer-related life-years (2783 vs. 5279); a higher number of CRC cases prevented (1622 vs. 146), a higher proportion of CRC cases prevented (50.2% vs. 4.5%), more life-years saved (2852 vs. 339), and cheaper total costs per life-year saved (USD212,553 vs. 773,894). The total costs per life-year saved is more affordable than that achieved by colonoscopy as a primary screening tool (USD212,553 vs. USD236,909). The findings show that M3 biomarkers may be more cost-effective than colonoscopy.

Head-to-Head Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis of Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia

Background: Studies on the use of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in colorectal screening have long assumed perfect accuracy for colonoscopy. No study to date has directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy and FIT to detect advanced neoplasia (AN) in a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was performed for a head-to-head comparison of FIT and colonoscopy using a third acceptable reference standard in asymptomatic adults. Cochrane methodology was used to perform a head-to-head diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis. Quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. Results: Two studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 98.5 (95% CI 96.3-100%) and 100% (99.9-100%) for colonoscopy and 16.4% (10.3-22.6%) and 95.4% (94.3-96.4%) for FIT. Colonoscopy was significantly better than FIT (P < 0.0001). The positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were 1.75 (1.57-1.96) and 0.03 (0.01-0.08) for colonoscopy and 3.02 (2.01-4.55) and 0.88 (0.82-0.95) for FIT, respectively. Conclusion: Colonoscopy provides significantly better diagnostic accuracy to detect AN compared with FIT (GRADE: ⨁⨁◯◯). Our study provided precise sensitivity and specificity of both colonoscopy and FIT and a revision in screening policies based on an updated cost-effectiveness analysis considering the results of the head-to-head analysis.

Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

The multitarget fecal immunochemical test versus the fecal immunochemical test for programmatic colorectal cancer screening: a cross-sectional intervention study with paired design

BACKGROUND

Many screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to triage individuals for colonoscopy. Although these programs reduce CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality, the detection of advanced precursor lesions (advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps) by FIT could be improved. As an alternative for FIT, the antibody-based multitargetFIT (mtFIT) has been proposed. The mtFIT measures three protein markers: hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2. In a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study in a large colonoscopy-controlled series (n = 1284), mtFIT showed increased sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN), at equal specificity, compared to FIT (42.9% versus 37.3%; p = 0.025). This increase was mainly due to a higher sensitivity of mtFIT for advanced adenomas (37.8% versus 28.1% for FIT; p = 0.006). The present mtFIT study aims to prospectively validate these findings in the context of the Dutch national CRC screening program.

METHOD

The mtFIT study is a cross-sectional intervention study with a paired design. Eligible subjects for the Dutch FIT-based national CRC screening program are invited to perform mtFIT in addition to FIT. Samples are collected at home, from the same bowel movement, and are shipped to a central laboratory by postal mail. If either one or both tests are positive, participants are referred for colonoscopy. Detailed colonoscopy and pathology data are centrally stored in a national screening database (ScreenIT; Topicus, Deventer, the Netherlands) that is managed by the screening organization, and will be retrieved for this study. We aim to determine the relative sensitivity for AN, comprising of CRC, advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps, of mtFIT compared to FIT at an equal positivity rate. Additionally, we will use the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal CAncer model to predict lifetime health effects and costs for programmatic mtFIT- versus FIT-based screening. The target sample size is 13,131 participants.

DISCUSSION

The outcome of this study will inform on the comparative clinical utility of mtFIT versus FIT in the Dutch national CRC screening program and is an important step forward in the development of a new non-invasive stool test for CRC screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT05314309, registered April 6th 2022, first inclusions March 25th 2022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT05314309&cntry=&state=&city=&dist =.

Potential Modifiers and Different Cut-offs in Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis

Background: Fecal immunoglobulin test (FIT) has been advocated as the first line of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in several jurisdictions. Most studies have focused on CRC as the outcome of interest. Our goal was to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of different thresholds of FIT as compared with colonoscopy for detection of advanced colonic neoplasia and potential modifiers using proper Cochrane methodology. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was performed for studies on FIT using colonoscopy as the reference standard to detect advanced neoplasia. Cochrane methodology was used to perform a diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis. Diagnostic accuracy of different cut-offs of FIT, including 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 ng/mL, were calculated separately. Meta-regression analysis was also performed to detect potential a priori modifiers, including age, location of the tumor, and time from FIT to colonoscopy. Results: Twenty-four studies were included with no evidence of publication bias. The sensitivity of FIT did not decrease with lowering the cut-off, although specificity increased in higher cut-offs. Commonly used cut-offs of 50 ng/mL, 75 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL for FIT provided sensitivity of 39%, 36%, 27% and specificity of 92%, 94%, 96%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of FIT did not significantly differ in proximal versus distal lesions or in individuals below or over the age of 50 years. The results remained robust in a meta-regression of the location of the study, time from FIT to colonoscopy, and methodological quality. Conclusion: The sensitivity of FIT might have been overestimated in previous studies focusing on CRC, and it seems to be independent of age, location of neoplasia, or cut-offs, contrary to some previous studies. Lowering the cut-off will reduce the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by increasing specificity but without any effect on sensitivity.

Can intravenous lidocaine definitely attenuate propofol requirement and improve outcomes among colonoscopic patients under intravenous sedation?: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol-sparing effect of lidocaine has not been fully elucidated because propofol is usually mixed with many medications in anesthetic practice. Therefore, the study aimed to verify the additive effect of intravenous lidocaine to propofol without other sedative medications and control the depth of anesthesia using the bispectral index (BIS) during colonoscopy in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients scheduled and undergoing colonoscopy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) (Group L) or a similar volume of normal saline (Group C) with propofol administration guided by BIS monitoring. The primary outcome was total propofol requirements between group comparisons. The secondary outcomes included the number of hypoxemic periods, hemodynamic changes, duration in returning of BIS > 85, sedation scores, pain scores, postoperative opioid requirement, and patient satisfaction between group comparisons.

RESULTS

Intravenous lidocaine showed significantly reduced total propofol use (151.76 ± 50.78 mg vs 242.06 ± 50.86 mg, Group L vs Group C, respectively, P < .001). Duration in returning to BIS > 85, sedation scores, and patient satisfaction scores were significantly superior in Group L (P < .05). The number of hypoxemic episodes, changes of hemodynamic response, pain scores, and postoperative opioid requirement were similar in both groups. No adverse effects were detected in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine produced a definitely effective reduced propofol requirement without other sedative agents and improved outcomes including patient satisfaction, duration in returning to BIS > 85, and sedation score during colonoscopy without adverse effects.

Clinical Effectiveness of Faecal Immunochemical Test in the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer-An Umbrella Review

Introduction: The colorectal cancer prognosis depends on the stage of the neoplasm; therefore, its early detection plays an important role. The aim of the study is evaluation of the sensitivity, specificity, and clinical effectiveness of the faecal immunochemical test in the early colorectal cancer detection. Methods: The clinical analysis was based on the results of the studies included in a systematic review conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The following medical information sources were searched: Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), The Cochrane Library. Results: From 241 citations, 13 studies were included in this review. All included studies had a low risk of bias. The faecal immunochemical test is highly specific in all analysed populations ranging from 85% to 97%. In most of the found studies, sensitivity is over 75%. The faecal immunochemical test screening also determines a reduction in death (10-59%) due to colorectal cancer. Conclusions: The faecal immunochemical test is an effective and cost-effective method of conducting population-wide colorectal cancer screening. It is an alternative or complementary to other screening tests, including colonoscopy.

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.

An Assessment of Physicians’ Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening and International Guidelines Awareness and Adherence: Results From a Thai National Survey

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake is generally low in the Asia Pacific and physicians’ recommendations affect the screening participation.

Objective

The study aimed to assess Thai physicians’ recommendations for CRC screening, and the awareness of and adherence to international guidelines.

Methods

A survey containing questions assessing physicians’ demographic data, screening recommendations, and awareness of the international CRC screening guidelines assessed by clinical vignettes. Independent predictors of physicians’ recommendations for CRC screening were determined by logistic regression analysis.

Results

Five hundred and eighty-sixth of 1,286 (46%) physicians completed the survey, and 58% of them offered CRC screening. The majority of colorectal surgeons (91%) and gastroenterologists (86%) endorsed screening, whereas 35% of primary care physicians recommended screening. The patient’s age was the only factor influencing the physician’s decision to offer CRC screening (OR, 2.75: 95% CI, 1.61–4.67). Colonoscopy was the most recommended modality among specialists, whereas 60% of primary care physicians offered fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). The guidelines awareness was noted in 81% of participants, with the highest rates among gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons. Gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere to the guidelines than surgeons, but both recommended shorter interval surveillance colonoscopy than guidelines recommendations in cases of small hyperplastic rectosigmoid polyps.

Conclusions

Recommendations for CRC screening and awareness of guidelines vary among different specialties. A low proportion of primary care physicians recommended screening and colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists recommended shorter intervals for surveillance of small hyperplastic polyp than suggested by guidelines.

Microsimulation Model for Prevention and Intervention of Coloretal Cancer in China (MIMIC-CRC): Development, Calibration, Validation, and Application

Introduction

A microsimulation model provides important references for decision-making regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention strategies, yet such a well-validated model is scarce in China.

Methods

We comprehensively introduce the development of MIcrosimulation Model for the prevention and Intervention of Colorectal Cancer in China (MIMIC-CRC). The MIMIC-CRC was first constructed to simulate the natural history of CRC based on the adenoma-carcinoma pathway. The parameters were calibrated and validated using data from population-based cancer registry data and CRC screening programs. Furthermore, to assess the model’s external validity, we compared the model-derived results to outcome patterns of a sigmoidoscopy screening trial in the UK [UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening (UKFSS) trial]. Finally, we evaluated the application potential of the MIMIC-CRC model in CRC screening by comparing the 8 different strategies.

Results

We found that most of the model-predicted colorectal lesion prevalence was within the 95% CIs of observed prevalence in a large population-based CRC screening program in China. In addition, model-predicted sex- and age-specific CRC incidence and mortality were equivalent to the registry-based data. The hazard ratios of model-estimated CRC-related incidence and mortality for sigmoidoscopy screening compared to no screening were 0.60 and 0.51, respectively, which were comparable to the reported results of the UKFSS trial. Moreover, we found that all 8 strategies could reduce CRC incidence and mortality compared to no screening.

Conclusions

The well-calibrated and validated MIMIC-CRC model may represent a valid tool to assess the comparative effectiveness of CRC screening strategies and will be useful for further decision-making to CRC prevention.

Improving Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates: A Colorectal Cancer Screening Quality Improvement Project in a Multisite Federally Qualified Health Center

The goal of this quality improvement project was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in a multicenter federally qualified health center (FQHC) within the Central Appalachian region of rural, southwestern Virginia. Guided by the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, the objectives were to (1) evaluate implementation processes and effectiveness of an automated electronic medical record patient reminder system to promote fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion, compared with live telephone reminders delivered by a care coordinator (i.e., usual care), and (2) explore staff perceptions related to improving CRC screening rates. In total, 119 FITs were distributed with 59 assigned to usual care and 60 to the automated groups. In the usual care group, 79% patients with completed protocol returned their FIT; 9% were positive. In the automated reminder group, 76% patients with completed protocol returned their FIT; 10% were positive. There was no significant difference in the number of contacts per patients between the usual care (2.0, SD = 0.82 contacts/patient) and automated (1.8, SD = 0.98 contacts/patient) groups (p = .248). In total, the usual care and automated groups required 56 and 17 live calls, respectively. Overall, FQHC system-wide CRC screening rates increase from 30.5% to 47.3%. Ten staff interviews revealed perceptions of CRC screening, the QI project, and organizational change processes that may inform future cancer control projects. Researcher and practitioners should consider PDSA quality improvement projects as an initial step to build capacity and improve CRC screening rates, especially when working in FQHC with limited resources to engage in large complex research projects.

Colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in France: how many people are actually covered? Focus on the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) remains low in France, particularly in the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur (PACA) region. The aim of this study was to compare insured persons (50-74 years) who had FIT and/or colonoscopy in PACA with the general French population.

METHODS

FIT and colonoscopy rates were calculated according to SP-France and National Health Data System data.

RESULTS

The rate of FIT in 2016-2017 was lower in PACA than in France (25.6 vs. 29.1%, P < 0.001). Conversely, in 2013-2017, the rate of colonoscopy in the past 5 years was higher in PACA than in France (23.1 vs. 20.1%, P < 0.001). Total rate for FIT within 2 years and/or colonoscopy within 5 years was 46.0% in PACA vs. 46.5% in France (P < 0.001). Overuse was higher for diagnostic (1.21) than therapeutic colonoscopies (1.05). Therapeutic colonoscopy occurred more with FIT than without (47.88 vs. 38.7%, P < 0.001). According to USA criteria, persons with FIT within 2 years and/or sigmoidoscopy and/or colonoscopy within 10 years was 59.4% in PACA vs. 54.7% in France (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Low participation in FIT in France must be improved to increase the rate of therapeutic colonoscopies and reduce the incidence of CRC. The higher colonoscopy rate in PACA could explain the lower CRC mortality. Efforts should be focused on the more than 40% of French insured who are not screened by either FIT or colonoscopy.

Clinical Validation of a Multitarget Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening : A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study

BACKGROUND

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet it leaves room for improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a multitarget FIT (mtFIT) with better diagnostic performance than FIT.

DESIGN

Diagnostic test accuracy study.

SETTING

Colonoscopy-controlled series.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons (n = 1284) from a screening (n = 1038) and referral (n = 246) population were classified by their most advanced lesion (CRC [n = 47], advanced adenoma [n = 135], advanced serrated polyp [n = 30], nonadvanced adenoma [n = 250], and nonadvanced serrated polyp [n = 53]), along with control participants (n = 769).

MEASUREMENTS

Antibody-based assays were developed and applied to leftover FIT material. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was applied to biomarker concentrations to identify the optimal combination for detecting advanced neoplasia. Performance of this combination, the mtFIT, was cross-validated using a leave-one-out approach and compared with FIT at equal specificity.

RESULTS

The CART analysis showed a combination of hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2-the mtFIT-to have a cross-validated sensitivity for advanced neoplasia of 42.9% (95% CI, 36.2% to 49.9%) versus 37.3% (CI, 30.7% to 44.2%) for FIT (P = 0.025), with equal specificity of 96.6%. In particular, cross-validated sensitivity for advanced adenomas increased from 28.1% (CI, 20.8% to 36.5%) to 37.8% (CI, 29.6% to 46.5%) (P = 0.006). On the basis of these results, early health technology assessment indicated that mtFIT-based screening could be cost-effective compared with FIT.

LIMITATION

Study population is enriched with persons from a referral population.

CONCLUSION

Compared with FIT, the mtFIT showed better diagnostic accuracy in detecting advanced neoplasia because of an increased detection of advanced adenomas. Moreover, early health technology assessment indicated that these results provide a sound basis to pursue further development of mtFIT as a future test for population-based CRC screening. A prospective screening trial is in preparation.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Stand Up to Cancer/Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and HealthHolland.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a community-based colorectal cancer screening program in Shanghai, China

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of a community-based colorectal cancer-screening program (C-CRCSP) in Shanghai, China, among the residents in the urban, suburban and rural areas.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a 25-year annual C-CRCSP including 100 000 populations. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); referring to either life-years gained, or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The threshold was gross domestic product per capita. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the influence of compliance, prevalence, technological performance, medical cost and annual cost discount rate (3.5%) on ICER. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated the probability of the cost-effectiveness of C-CRCSP at different maximum acceptable ceiling ratios.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the C-CRCSP resulted in total gains of 7840 QALYs and 2210 life-years (LY), at a total cost of CNY 58.54 million; that is, the ICER were CNY 7460/QALYs and CNY 26650/LY. Stratifying by residency, the cumulative gains in QALYs and LY were estimated to be the lowest in the urban populations compared with the rural and suburban populations. The cost for the urban population was 3-fold and 6-fold that of the suburban and rural populations. The ICER for QALYs ranged from 2180 (rural) to 16 840 (urban).

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of a C-CRCSP in Shanghai was most favorable for the rural population, while the urban population benefits less in terms of QALYs. ICER could be enhanced by measures that increase compliance.

Gender-specific cut-off levels in colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical test: A population-based study of colonoscopy findings and costs

OBJECTIVE

In the population-based Swedish regional colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program of Stockholm-Gotland using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), gender-specific cut-off levels of fecal hemoglobin are applied, since previous studies have indicated a lower sensitivity of FIT for CRC in women. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and the screening costs overall and per detected CRC of this strategy.

METHODS

All individuals aged 60-69 invited to screening in 2015-2017 were included. Cut-off level for positive FIT was 40 µg/g in women and 80 µg/g in men. Those with a positive FIT were referred to colonoscopy. The yield of CRC and screening cost for the study period were assessed and compared to cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders.

RESULTS

Approximately 230,000 individuals were invited. Overall participation rates were 72% in women and 65% in men (p < 0.05). FIT was positive in 4256 individuals (2.7% in both genders). In 3758 colonoscopies, 258 (6.9%) CRCs were detected. The positive predictive value for CRC was significantly higher in men (8.3% vs. 5.8%). In 120 women with CRC, 28 (23%) had FIT < 80 µg/g. Negative colonoscopies were more common in women (24% vs. 17%, p < 0.05). Total costs for the study period were 52,000,000SEK (≈5,200,000€), i.e. 16% higher compared to using cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders, and corresponding to a 3% increment in cost per detected CRC.

CONCLUSION

The high rate of CRC detected in women in the lowest FIT category outweighs the minor reduction in screening costs if the same cut-off level was used as for men.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.

CONCLUSION

At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Noninvasive strategies for colorectal cancer screening: opportunities and limitations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the United States, only 67% of patients are up to date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. While colonoscopy is highly sensitive and specific for CRC and precursor lesion detection and removal, it is invasive, expensive and resource heavy. Hence, there is an unfulfilled need for multiple modality CRC screening that can improve current CRC screening rates and may be resource effective strategies when used in conjunction with a colonoscopy program. Our review highlights the complementary, often underutilized, noninvasive CRC screening methods with a focus on performance, risks, benefits, and recent updates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies demonstrate that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is superior to guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests for CRC screening. Studies show superiority of multitarget stool DNA test to FIT in sensitivity, though with concern for decreased specificity in setting of one-time tests. Technical advances continue to improve accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy. There are ongoing studies to characterize often difficult-to-detect high-risk lesions in computed tomography colonography. Septin 9 continues to have suboptimal accuracy for CRC screening, but has been shown to be associated with more advanced, invasive CRC stages.

SUMMARY

There are ongoing advances in noninvasive screening modalities for CRC; these should be considered as alternatives to colonoscopy in specific patient populations.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening in a Medicare population

AIM

Multiple screening strategies are guideline-endorsed for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC). The impact of real-world adherence rates on the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based CRC screening strategies remains undefined.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Medicare as a primary payer used the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) to estimate cost and clinical outcomes for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening strategies in a simulated cohort of US adults aged 65 years, who were assumed to either be previously unscreened or initiating screening upon entry to Medicare. Reported real-world adherence rates for initial stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow up (after a positive stool test result) were defined as 71.1% and 73.0% for mt-sDNA, 42.6% and 47.0% for FIT, and 33.4% and 47.0% for FOBT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was defined as the primary outcome of interest; other cost and clinical outcomes were also reported in secondary analyses. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

When reported real-world adherence rates were included only for initial stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was cost-effective versus FIT ($62,814/QALY) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY); mt-sDNA also yielded improved clinical outcomes. When reported real-world adherence rates were included for both initial stool-based screening and follow-up colonoscopy (when indicated), mt-sDNA was increasingly cost-effective compared to FIT and FOBT ($31,725/QALY and $28,465/QALY, respectively), with further improved clinical outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Results are based on real-world cross-sectional adherence rates and may vary in the context of other types of settings. Only guideline-recommended stool-based strategies were considered in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of the effectiveness and benefits of specific CRC screening strategies should include both test-specific performance characteristics and real-world adherence to screening tests and, when indicated, follow-up colonoscopy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colon cancer screening strategies in the context of the French national screening program

BACKGROUND

A nationwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was set up in France from 2009 for average-risk, asymptomatic people aged 50-74 years based on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test [faecal immunochemical test (FIT)] every 2 years, followed by colonoscopy if positive. The European standard recommends a participation rate of 45% for the program to be cost-effective, yet the latest published rate in France was 34%. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives taking real-world participation rates into account.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared, based either on a screening test (Guaiac or FIT testing, blood-based, stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy) followed by full colonoscopy if positive or direct colonoscopy. A microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness associated with each strategy.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, FIT was associated with a 14.0 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase of €50,520 per 1000 individuals, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3600/QALY. Only stool DNA and blood-based testing were associated with a QALY increase compared with FIT, with stool DNA weakly dominated by blood-based testing, and the latter associated with an ICER of €154,600/QALY compared with FIT. All other strategies were dominated by FIT.

CONCLUSION

FIT every 2 years appears to be the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy when taking into account a real-world participation rate of 34%.