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

Liquid biopsy: An arsenal for tumour screening and early diagnosis

Cancer has become the second leading cause of death in the world, and more than 50% of cancer patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Early diagnosis of tumours is the key to improving patient quality of life and survival time and reducing the socioeconomic burden. However, there is still a lack of reliable early diagnosis methods in clinical practice. In recent years, liquid biopsy technology has developed rapidly. It has the advantages of noninvasiveness, easy access to sample sources, and reproducibility. It has become the main focus of research on the early diagnosis methods of tumours. This review summarises the research progress of existing liquid biopsy markers, such as circulating tumour DNA, circulating viral DNA, DNA methylation, circulating tumour cells, circulating RNA, exosomes, and tumour education platelets in early diagnosis of tumours, and analyses the current advantages and limitations of various markers, providing a direction for the application and transformation of liquid biopsy research in early diagnosis of clinical tumours.

Estimated impact and value of blood-based colorectal cancer screening at varied adherence compared with stool-based screening

OBJECTIVE

This analysis estimated the outcomes of triennial blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at various adherence, including perfect adherence, compared with triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening at the reported real-world adherence rate.

METHODS

The validated CRC-AIM model simulated a US cohort of average-risk individuals receiving triennial screening with mt-sDNA or blood-based test from ages 45 to 75 years. Modeled specificity and sensitivity were based on reported data. Adherence was set at a real-world rate of 65.6% for mt-sDNA and at 65.6%, relative 10% incremental increases from 65.6%, or 100% for the blood-based test. Costs of mt-sDNA and the blood-based test were based on prices for clinically available tests ($508.87 and $895, respectively). Value-based pricing was estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

RESULTS

Both tests resulted in life-years gained (LYG), reduced CRC cases, and reduced deaths versus no screening. With adherence for mt-sDNA set at 65.6% and for blood-based test set at 100%, mt-sDNA resulted in 30% more LYG, 52% more averted CRC cases, and 32% more averted CRC deaths. At reported sensitivity and specificity rates, mt-sDNA at 65.6% adherence dominates (is more effective and less costly) the blood-based test at any adherence. There was no price at which triennial screening with the blood-based test at any adherence was cost-effective compared with mt-sDNA at 65.6% adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Triennial screening with mt-sDNA resulted in better clinical outcomes at a lower cost compared with the modeled blood-based test even at perfect adherence, supporting application of blood-based tests only as a secondary screening option.